Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

NEW WRITS

For Ryedale, in the room of John Deane Spence, Esq., deceased.

For Derbyshire, West, in the room of Matthew Francis Parris, Esq. (Manor of Northstead).—[Mr. Wakeham.]

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

Soviet Union (Merchant Shipping Fleet)

Mr. Nicholas Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he has received representations about the defence implications of the growth in size of the Soviet merchant shipping fleet.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Stanley): My right hon. Friend has received no recent representations specifically on this matter, but a number of hon. Members have referred in the House to the defence significance of the Soviet merchant marine, and I did so myself in opening the debate on the Royal Navy on 6 February.

Mr. Baker: Concerned as we are with the maintenance of peace on the seas in the western Mediterranean and elsewhere, does not the dramatic increase in the size of Soviet merchant shipping—by 20 per cent. during the last nine years, at a time when the United Kingdom merchant fleet has declined by 56 per cent.—demand that we should review and maintain a large merchant fleet of our own? Will my right hon. Friend consider raising the subject of the size of the Soviet merchant shipping fleet and its use for defence purposes in arms reduction negotiations?

Mr. Stanley: As my hon. Friend knows, I addressed the issue of the defence significance of the Soviet merchant marine. I have some doubts as to whether it is an appropriate subject for arms control negotiations, given the difficulty of establishing whether particular vessels are essentially for defence or civil purposes. I take the basic thrust of what my hon. Friend has said. As he knows, our Department takes a very close interest in, and is concerned about, merchant shipping requirements for our own defence purposes. I draw his attention to last year's "Statement on the Defence Estimates," in which we said that, in respect of the particular categories that we require for defence purposes, the numbers are at present such that we can discharge our NATO obligations, with the

exception of stem trawlers for minesweeping. However, we are well on the way towards devising a satisfactory alternative to meet that requirement.

Mr. Skinner: During the Falklands war this Tory Government called on the Merchant Navy to redouble its efforts in that campaign, and most of those involved did so. As soon as the war was over, the Government decided to reduce the merchant shipping fleet right around the coast of Britain. Instead of talking about the Soviet shipping fleet, would it not be sensible to build up the British merchant shipping fleet and create more jobs?

Mr. Stanley: I certainly agree with the early part of what the hon. Gentleman said. The Merchant Marine responded magnificently to the demands placed on it at the time of the Falklands conflict, and I am sure it would do so again. General policy on the Merchant Marine is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. I assure the hon. Gentleman and the rest of the House that we are watching extremely closely the pattern of the availability of merchant shipping for our own defence purposes.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Given the defence implications of the rundown of our merchant fleet, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is extremely important that the Ministry of Defence should look closely at ways in which our defence budget can be used specifically to bolster the falling numbers of our Merchant Marine to help it counter the threat from the growth in the Soviet merchant fleet?

Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend will be aware that in times of emergency we have power to take up individual ships that are under the British flag. He will also know that we spend considerable sums under the defence budget and that major orders are in prospect. We are making our own direct contribution through defence funds by building up the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Service, which is for direct defence purposes.

Mr. O'Neill: The Minister should know that no one appreciates the complacency of the Government on this matter. What are the defence implications of flagging out of the BP fleet, because that is one of the biggest drains on the potential contribution of the Merchant Marine? If it were to carry on at this rate, we would be gravely at risk.

Mr. Stanley: I totally reject what the hon. Gentleman has said. There is no complacency whatever by Defence Ministers. BP tankers have been flagged out to the Bermudan flag. If a British-owned ship is flagged out on to the register of a dependent territory, it is still subject to United Kingdom Government requisitioning and is available for defence purposes.

Youth Training Scheme

Dr. Glyn: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what further proposals he has to encourage recruitment to the Army YTS by visits to schools; and what were the most recent figures of recruitment in the previous year.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the progress of the YTS in the armed services.

Mr. Stanley: Between the start of the scheme in August 1983 and February 1986 some 2,700 young people have been accepted for the armed services youth training


scheme, and almost 950 trainees have subsequently transferred to regular engagements in the services. Some 900 young people were accepted for the scheme in the last year, of whom 129 were for the Army. We are continuing to promote the scheme actively, including through-school visits by all three services.

Dr. Glyn: Can my right hon. Friend say whether visits to schools are being increased? Does he agree that such visits are of great value?

Mr. Stanley: I am grateful for the question about the importance of visits to schools to promote the armed services youth training scheme. That is an important matter and one of the high priority tasks for the services careers information officers. I understand that this year they are planning to visit several thousand schools, colleges and universities.

Mr. Thompson: Having regard to the value that many young people could gain from a period of service in the armed forces and the fact that the youth training scheme has been extended for two years, will my right hon. Friend do more to promote the youth training scheme, particularly in relation to the Army? Is there any reason why more than 10,000 young people could not benefit from a scheme of this kind?

Mr. Stanley: I assure my hon. Friend that promoting the scheme is given an important priority. I hope that young people will be encouraged by the fact that the figures show that about one third of the young men and women who take part in the armed services youth training scheme have transferred to regular engagements in the services. They have moved from a temporary training scheme to very good full-time permanent jobs.

Sir Adam Butler: My right hon. Friend said that only 129 young people accepted for YTS had been recruited to the Army—an extraordinarily low figure. Does he agree that that low number stems from a reluctance by the professionals to take on what they might describe as conscripts? Will he do much more to encourage the scheme in the way described by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson)? Enormous benefits could flow from that.

Mr. Stanley: I stress that during the operation of the scheme the Army has made available many more places than there have been applicants who have met the requisite standards. So far—this may well change—people have been attracted particularly to the RAF and, to some extent, the Royal Navy. In the past year or so, the Army has had more difficulty in attracting applicants. We have been looking closely at that position and want to remedy it.

Strategic Defence Initiative

Mrs. Clwyd: asked the Secretary of State for Defence which projects his Department has approved and funded on strategic defence initiative-related research in United Kingdom universities.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Norman Lamont): The hon. Lady's question is based on a misunderstanding. It has been made clear that the United Kingdom is not contributing funds to the United States SDI research programme, nor is it subject to approval by the Ministry of Defence.

Mrs. Clwyd: Given the fears expressed many times in the House on the dangers of SDI, how can anyone be expected to trust the Government when they have shown that they are ready to deceive the House, the people of Britain and our European allies by mounting a senseless, dangerous attack on another country—Libya?

Mr. Lamont: I am surprised that the hon. Lady is not more enthusiastic about SDI, because the Labour party advocates a non-nuclear defence policy. It is extraordinary that the hon. Lady had nothing to say about the enormous efforts being made by the Soviet Union. Why did she say nothing about the extensive programme employing thousands of scientists on high energy lasers and about the space launch system which the Soviet Union is developing, which is essential for a space-launched weapons system?

Sir Peter Emery: What guidance has my hon. Friend arranged for universities so that they may know of the participation and research contracts that can be made available to British industry and universities to assist and benefit from the SDI programme, which we should encourage?

Mr. Lamont: I have written to universities and institutions of higher education which we think could be involved in the programme. We have explained to them what our SDI office can do. We shall arrange a series of briefings in which we hope institutions of higher education will participate.

Dr. Bray: Has the hon. Gentleman read the United States Department of Defence report by the Eastport committee? Is he aware that the report characterises SDI as being likely in its early stages to be more effective as an offensive rather than a defensive system?

Mr. Lamont: President Reagan has made it clear that it is intended as a defensive system. Our commitment is to the research programme. That programme will establish the basis of the project. It implies nothing beyond research.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Are funds being made available for the possible study of a European defence initiative?

Mr. Lamont: As I explained in answer to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), the project is funded by the United States Government. A European architecture study is obviously an important aspect of that. It will be carried on bilaterally between the companies and countries of Europe and the United States.

Mr. McNamara: The Minister said that universities should not need the approval of the Ministry of Defence on work they did under the SDI. What check does the Ministry of Defence make of any of our secrets which may go to the United States? What information does the Ministry demand from universities as part and parcel of the work that they do on SDI?

Mr. Lamont: The universities are subject to the normal security procedures to which defence contractors are subject. That does not mean that, over and above security considerations, we have a veto over the work that they do.

Chemical Weapons

Mr. Wallace: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress of talks within NATO on the force goal requiring the United States to modernise its chemical weapons stocks with binary munitions.

Mr. Stanley: I cannot add to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) on 7 March.

Mr. Wallace: During Britain's chairmanship of the committee at the Geneva disarmament conference on chemical warfare, what initiatives do the Government propose to take to attempt to get an agreement on limitations on chemical warfare? Will the Government undertake not to work counter to an agreement by conniving with the United States to end the 16-year moratorium on the production of chemical weapons?

Mr. Stanley: On the first part of the question, we shall be using our chairmanship to try to achieve progress towards a comprehensive verifiable ban on chemical weapons. That is highly desirable and a fundamental objective of the Government's arms control policy. Towards that end, we have, over the last year or so, tabled a number of papers to try to make progress on the verification issue.
With regard to the second part of the question, I repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) on 7 March:
A force goal requiring the United States to modernise its chemical weapons stocks with binary munitions is being discussed collectively within NATO in accordance with normal Alliance procedures."—[Official Report, 7 March 1986; Vol. 93, c. 313.]
I cannot add to that.

Sir Patrick Wall: Does not the wearing of protective clothing reduce the effectiveness of troops by 50 per cent., and is it not a fact that the Soviet Union ends all its exercises with either chemical or nuclear warfare, to which we have no answer? In the event of failure to reach an agreement at Geneva, should we not have these stocks as soon as possible?

Mr. Stanley: The United States has a particular force goal proposal which is presently under consideration with the NATO authorities. This would enable it to modernize its own chemical stocks with binary munitions. I am aware of the point made by my hon. Friend about the serious extent to which the wearing of the nuclear, biological and chemical warfare kit degrades the operational effectiveness of forces. If one side can oblige the other to fight in such protective kit but not be so encumbered itself, it confers a major operational advantage on that side.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Will the Minister give the House an unequivocal undertaking that he will not embark on the lunacy of producing chemical weapons again? Will he give the armed forces the assurance that they will always have the very best of protective clothing made available to them?

Mr. Stanley: I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman the latter assurance that he seeks. We are continually trying to improve the protection of our own forces against the massive and very serious chemical weapon threat that they face from the Soviet Union.
The Government's policy remains unchanged from what was set out by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 10 January 1985:
The facts are that Britain abandoned its chemical warfare capability in the late 1950s. There has been no change in Government policy since then, nor is any change now proposed."—[Official Report, 10 January 1985; Vol. 70, c. 901.]

Mr. Churchill: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Soviet Union has by far the largest and most modern stocks of chemical warfare weapons in the world today? I recognise the great pressures that that imposes on the United States and other Western allies, including ourselves, but does my right hon. Friend agree that an effective and verifiable agreement banning such weapons and ensuring their destruction in the Soviet Union and elsewhere would be infinitely preferable to our goring down that route?

Mr. Stanley: I agree with my hon. Friend that it would be infinitely preferable to have a comprehensive arms control agreement, which we have been seeking. If the Soviet Union were to respond positively to the verification proposals which we have put forward, agreement should be within our grasp.
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the fact that the Soviet Union has been continuing to invest in a massive chemical warfare capability. We estimate that that amounts to 300,000 tonnes of agent alone. No responsible Government can turn a blind eye to that capability.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Will the Minister tell us more about discussions regarding American binary weapons in NATO? Is it not a fact that NATO military bureaucracy has accepted that binary weapons should be located in Europe? Will the right hon. Gentleman make it quite clear that the Government will not agree to that or to any establishment or location of any American binary weapons on British soil?

Mr. Stanley: I cannot add to what I said about the consideration in NATO circles of the force goal proposals that have been put forward by the United States. The United States Government have said that they have no plans to deploy binary chemical weapons in any foreign country in peacetime and that, should such deployment be considered, the United States would consult the countries concerned beforehand.

Nuclear Defence Policy

Mr. Greg Knight: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the total number of jobs in the United Kingdom which are dependent on, or otherwise related to, Her Majesty's Government's nuclear defence policy.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Younger): Excluding service men and headquarters civilian staff, some 11,000 people are employed by the Ministry of Defence in general nuclear weapons-related activities. In addition, over the period of its procurement, the Trident project will account for an average of 8,500 direct and 6,500 indirect jobs in the United Kingdom. Further employment results from extramural work in support of the general defence nuclear programme.

Mr. Knight: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Do the facts not reveal that, should Britain ever decide to pursue one-sided nuclear disarmament, peace in


Europe would be put in jeopardy and thousands of people would be thrown out of work? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever criteria are used, the Labour party's defence policy—if it can be called a defence policy—would have disastrous results if implemented?

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The purpose of the Trident programme is to secure the United Kingdom's defence posture. We cannot ignore the fact that it provides a great many jobs, which the Opposition have made special efforts to obscure in case their policy of cancelling the project should ever come about.

Mr. James Lamond: Is not the belated anxiety of Conservative Members about employment transparently hypocritical? Is it not a fact that defence jobs are just as vulnerable to redundancy as any others? Indeed, some of us believe that they are more vulnerable.

Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman cannot get away from the fact that a lot of jobs are involved in the Trident programme. He might have noticed, as I did, that when the Leader of the Opposition visited Devonport, his publicity mentioned that the Trident programme would be cancelled under Labour, but, when he visited Rosyth, he ostentatiously omitted that sentence to mislead people there.

Mr. Wilkinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many people are employed as a result of Britain's nuclear programme and that, even more important, many others are protected by and owe their security to it? Does he also agree that the Würzburg NATO nuclear planning group—our European ministerial NATO allies—expressed support for Britain's nuclear programme and welcomed the enhancement of our overall deterrent credibility which it afforded?

Mr. Younger: I agree with my hon. Friend. There is no doubt that the British contribution to the deterrent force has been a major factor in preserving peace in Europe for the past 40 years. My hon. Friend is also right that, at the Würzburg NPG meeting, our allies received a presentation from us on the British nuclear deterrent and expressed their warm approval of it.

Mr. Dalyell: What were the terms of the apology proffered by Mr. Caspar Weinberger about the visit to British firms—unauthorised, it seems—by Mr. Clarence Robinson?

Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman has raised this matter in earlier defence questions and, as promised, I have made inquiries about it. I discovered that Mr. Clarence Robinson's visit here had no significance, other than that it was a visit. It certainly had none of the significance that the hon. Gentleman fears.

Sir Hector Monro: How many of the defence jobs that my right hon. Friend mentioned are in Scotland. How much money goes into the Scottish economy as a result of them?

Mr. Younger: I shall be glad to answer a question on that point if my hon. Friend cares to table one. There is no doubt that the base at Faslane on the Clyde and a large portion of the dockyards at Rosyth would be decimated if the Trident programme were to be abandoned.

Mr. O'Neill: How many jobs have been lost in conventional support as a result of the Government's

commitment to a nuclear policy? How many jobs are being sacrificed on the Tyne and the Clyde because of the Government's inability to make up their mind about where the AOR and type 23 orders should go?

Mr. Younger: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is none. He ought to know, and I think he does know, that the Government have substantially increased conventional spending as well as coping with the Trident programme.

Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister confirm that in my own county of Gwynedd, at RAF Valley, people are employed on nuclear weapons? In view of the resolution by the county council not to have nuclear weapons in Gwynedd, will the Minister remove them?

Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman and the county council will have to face the fact that, whatever their responsibilities, they do not include responsibility for defence.

Procurement Policy

Mrs. Ann Winterton: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on future defence procurement policy.

Mr. Norman Lamont: We shall continue to seek to procure the equipment the services need at a price that gives the taxpayer value for money. To this end we shall pursue vigorously the twin aims of competition and collaboration.

Mrs. Winterton: Does my hon. Friend not consider that small arms procurement policy is inequitable and one-sided, given that our market is open to overseas competition while overseas markets remain firmly closed to us? Bearing in mind the recent redundancies at Radway Green in my constituency, will my hon. Friend give an assurance that all future orders will be placed in Britain and not abroad, because of the obvious absence of a free market?

Mr. Lamont: I cannot give my hon. Friend the assurance she seeks. She knows that it has always been our policy that to a certain extent we should open up to competition the market for ammunition. Last year we put only 10 per cent. of orders out to competition and we intend to increase that slightly. Following the order for 17 million rounds of 7·6 mm ammunition placed at Radway Green, and the overhang from last year, I am satisfied that the factory has a firm and good production order book.

Mr. Duffy: What specific steps has the Minister taken to enable defence procurement policy to take advantage of the United States 1986 Defence Authorisation Act, which establishes the groundwork for greater co-operation and collaboration between allies?

Mr. Lamont: We are considering a number of projects for joint collaboration. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Nunn amendment requires us, in consultation with our European allies, to develop a list of projects that can be developed on a collaborative basis, not just in Europe, but across the Atlantic.

Mr. Soames: What steps is my hon. Friend taking to transfer to civil research the large amount of money he spends on military research under the defence procurement policy?

Mr. Lamont: Our research in military establishments is carried out for military purposes and military reasons. We are doing everything possible to encourage spin-offs. My hon. Friend will be aware that we helped to set up a company called Defence Technology Enterprises, which enables private firms to have access to some of the research work carried out in our military establishments. That is a modest step, but it is a step in the right direction.

Mr. Douglas: Can the Minister give us an assurance about future procurement for the type 23? When is the order for 02 to be firmed up and the orders for 03 and 04 confirmed? Can he give us an assurance that Yarrow will be sustained as the lead yard for the type 23?

Mr. Lamont: The 02, 03 and 04 are being evaluated, but no decision has been made on the size or timing of the order. I am sure that Yarrow will remain as it is.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Is it not a fact that the Belgian, German and French Governments will not allow Royal Ordnance to tender for equipment in those countries, whereas we, under our policy of competitive tendering, allow them to tender for equipment for use by our armed forces?

Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend knows that Royal Ordnance is successful in penetrating foreign markets. We need to get better value for money in the defence budget. If the price of our ammunition is 50 to 60 per cent. higher than it is elsewhere, to take the modest step of looking only at 10 per cent. of our requirements on a competitive basis is a matter of common sense. Anybody who feels that his budget is constrained is bound to do that.

Mr. Ashdown: Among the procurement decisions that the Minister is currently considering is an order for 15 Westland Sea King helicopters, which are much needed by our defence forces. Will he give an undertaking to the House that that decision will not be delayed? If it is, it will create further problems for Westland and may risk interrupting the Sea King production line, which would cause the taxpayer to have to pay more in the long run, for those aircraft.

Mr. Lamont: I note what the hon. Gentleman has said. However, he knows that it has been made clear to the House on several occasions that there can be no guarantee of those orders. I cannot add to what has already been said.

Mr. McWilliam: When the Minister considers his future defence procurements, will he consider restoring from Germany to the Royal Ordnance Factory, Birtley the FH70 orders, since the Germans have been unable to supply them for over a year?

Mr. Lamont: The implication in the hon. Genleman's question is not quite right. He knows that the ammunition for the FH70 is governed by the terms of the memorandum of understanding. It is a shared project. In this instance the product has to come from the German factory.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my hon. Friend now do the House the courtesy of answering the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton)? My hon. Friend asked whether the Ministry of Defence would seek to place orders with countries whose markets are not open to us. Will he please answer that question? It is vital that this country should engage in free trade, but

it should do so only with those countries which are prepared to open their markets to our royal ordnance factories.

Mr. Lamont: I thought that I began my answer to the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Witnerton) by saying that I could not give her an undertaking. When my hon. Friend next sees the hon. Member for Congleton, perhaps he will ask her to confirm that that is what I said. I emphasised that our policy is to get the best value for money, and this modest opening up of the ammunitions market to foreign competition is one that we should continue to pursue.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Has the Director of Public Prosecutions reported on whether he intends to bring an action against Dowty Rotol of Cheltenham for cheating on defence contracts?

Mr. Lamont: No.

Experimental Aircraft Project

Mr. Gerald Howarth: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress on the experimental aircraft projects.

Mr. Norman Lamont: The design and construction of this aircraft are well advanced and on schedule. My right hon. Friend will tomorrow take great pleasure in attending the roll-out at Warton.

Mr. Howarth: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating British Aerospace and its Italian and German partners on producing on time this high technology demonstrator that is to be rolled out tomorrow? Will he assure the House that the benefits to be derived from this high technology demonstrator will be fully incorporated in the European fighter aircraft programme?

Mr. Lamont: I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating British Aerospace and its partners. The intention is to use the experience and the technology that has been developed in this aircraft for further use in the European fighter project. I am sure that the valuable experience that has been gained will be used.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Royal Air Force has a particular requirement for the European fighter aircraft, that this experimental aircraft has been designed around the needs of the Royal Air Force and that this must be remembered fully when we order the European Fighter aircraft?

Mr. Lamont: I note what my hon. Friend says, but it is important to emphasise that the idea behind the European fighter project is to produce an aircraft that suits the needs of several air forces, not just to build it around the requirements of one nation. It is important to stick to the requirements on weight and size that are essential if the project is to go ahead on a collaborative basis.

Mr. McNamara: Is the Minister of State aware that we on the Labour Benches join in congratulating British Aerospace on this achievement and look forward to seeing the roll-out of the aircraft tomorrow? Is he aware of the disturbing statements that were made on television over the weekend about the possibility of secrets being leaked to the Czechoslovakian Government by a junior official at the DTI? Is the Ministry of Defence satisfied that highly


sensitive military information concerning aircraft of this nature is now properly safeguarded at the DTI, and is no longer able to be purloined by junior officials?

Mr. Lamont: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, I cannot comment on that situation at this moment. That matter, I understand, is being investigated.

Strategic Defence Initiative

Mr. Boyes: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will now publish the memorandum of understanding on the strategic defence initiative following the German Government's decision to do so.

Mr. Norman Lamont: No. The United States-United Kingdom memorandum of understanding on United Kingdom participation in the United States research programme is classified. I understand that the corresponding agreement between the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany, signed on 27 March 1986, is confidential and will not be published.

Mr. Boyes: Irrespective of the actions of the Federal Republic of Germany, why does the Minister insist on secrecy for this memorandum of understanding? Surely Parliament has a right to know—or is it all to do with the Prime Minister's docile, weak-kneed, agree-at-any-price relationship with the President of the United States of America, as demonstrated in the last 24 hours?

Mr. Lamont: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the memorandum of understanding is an agreement between our Government and the Government of the United States. The latter Government are also negotiating agreements with several other Governments, and in the circumstances it would be utterly astonishing if they wanted to have that agreement made available publicly.

Mr. Warren: As my hon. Friend knows, I have received a copy of this document from the United States, which bears no classification sign of any kind. Therefore, I should like confirmation from him of the degree of classification that it is being given in the United States. Secondly, will he please reconsider publication, because this document contains commitments and constraints on British industry which have been made known to British industrialists and I think ought to be made known to Parliament?

Mr. Lamont: I had noticed the report in a newspaper that my hon. Friend had received the document. Whether he has received the memorandum of understanding or a different document on procurement co-operation, I do not know. If he has received this document, all I can say is that I note that he is in possession of a classified document.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Does the memorandum include a statement on the vulnerability of Europe and the destabilisation of deterrence as a result of the SDI along the lines of his right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary's initial comments? Will he publish at least those aspects?

Mr. Lamont: I can tell the hon. Gentleman, without giving anything away, that it does not cover that matter because, of course, the memorandum of understanding is concerned with matters such as transfer of technology, intellectual property rights, commercial matters and the

basis on which companies and institutions in this country would do deals with United States institutions on the SDI project.

Land Rover

Mr. John Mark Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he can forecast the future purchases of Land Rover by his Department.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. John Lee): We expect to order 2,600 of the new 90 model in the very near future. These orders will meet our requirements up to 1988–89. In addition, the company is currently competing for the services' requirement for a 1-tonne utility truck replacement, the order for which will be placed in the early part of 1987.

Mr. John Mark Taylor: While I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, may I ask him whether, when his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry moves closer to a decision on the future of Land Rover, he will guide him if there are any security issues to be taken into account, and will he look in detail at the ownership of the various bids?

Mr. Lee: All I can say to my hon. Friend is that the defence interests will be conveyed, and have been, to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

RIMPAC Exercise

Mr. Foulkes: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether it is intended that during their participation in the RIMPAC exercise British naval forces will take part in ground attacks against the Kaho' Olawe United States bombing range in Hawaii.

Mr. Stanley: No, Sir.

Mr. Foulkes: Not withstanding that answer, in view of the fact that we volunteered to participate in this exercise when New Zealand pulled out, and in view of recent events, how can the Minister convince us that in defence matters we are nothing more than a satellite state of the United States of America?

Mr. Stanley: It says a lot for the commitment of the Labour party to NATO that it is reluctant for us to exercise with our most important military partner in NATO.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that this is not a NATO exercise, but an exercise outside the NATO area? We are concerned about our obligations to NATO, but we do not want to enable the Americans to project power all over the world.

Mr. Stanley: We are very happy to exercise with the United States both in area and out of area.

Calcutt Report

Mr. McNamara: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he hopes to receive and publish the Calcutt report.

Mr. Stanley: My right hon. Friend received Mr. Calcutt's report on 9 April. He intends to publish it as soon as it has been cleared by the security authorities and he has completed his initial consideration of it.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Litherland: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 April.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Litherland: Is the Prime Minister aware that, by giving permission for the launching of F-111s to undertake a military attack on the mainland of Libya, she has not only broken the confidence of the EEC and international law, but now has the blood of innocents on her hands? Does she realise that that action and the build-up of American naval power are a threat to world peace and that she should divorce herself from Reagan's Rambo policies in that area? This is not the answer to international terrorism, which we all abhor. These are the questions that nations are asking.

The Prime Minister: I believe that the attacks made by the United States on Libya were within the inherent right of self-defence under article 51. That was why we gave our support to that action and our consent to the use of bases in Britain for that purpose.

Mr. Bellingham: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Bellingham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable concern in East Anglia this afternoon about the use to which United States air force bases have been put during the last 24 hours? Further, is she aware that this understandable anxiety could be allayed if it is proved beyond doubt that the United States raids were not contrary to article 51 and were strictly necessary to meet the Libyan terrorist threat?

The Prime Minister: As I indicated, I believe that the United States action against terrorist-related targets, undertaken in the light of evidence that further terrorist attacks were planned, was within the inherent right of self-defence under article 51.

Mr. Kinnock: I realise that there is to be a statement later today and a debate on Libya and the attack on Libya tomorrow, but the House and the country will want to know as quickly as possible what steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government to safeguard the welfare of British citizens in Libya and other countries in the middle east.

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, since we broke off diplomatic relations with Libya following the St. James's square terrorist incident some two years ago we have had consistently to tell our own people who remain in Libya that they do so on their own responsibility. The only representation that we have is someone in the British interests section of the Italian embassy. Of course, we are in touch with him and he will advise British citizens as best he can.

Mr. Kinnock: Is the Prime Minister satisfied that, acknowledging the background to our relationship with

Libya, enough can and will be done not only in Libya but elsewhere where people may be extremely vulnerable in the next period to provide proper safeguards to ensure their security?

The Prime Minister: Under terrorist attack there is no universal safeguard, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. All posts have been alerted and security stepped up.

Mr. Walters: While recognising the frustration felt by the United States when dealing with the Libyan Government, will not the effect of this American attack on Tripoli be to strengthen President Gaddafi, and to weaken our moderate friends in Egypt, Jordan and the Gulf?

The Prime Minister: No, I do not believe that it will have that effect. There has been state-sponsored terrorism by Libya for a long time. How much longer were we to remain passive and not exercise the right of self-defence inherent in the charter?

Mr. Benn: Will the Prime Minister be explicit with the House? Is she standing at the Dispatch Box on behalf of the Government condoning and supporting the death of civilians in Libya, who were killed by aircraft flying with her consent from British bases, when the House of Commons has neither been informed or consulted, nor given any approval to this act?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is aware that action by the United States took place against continued state-sponsored terrorism by Libya. I believe that we were entitled to use, that the United States was entitled to use, its inherent right of self-defence. If one refuses to take any risks because of the consequences, the terrorist Governments will win and one can only cringe before them.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that until some real progress is made in securing self-determination for the Palestinian people—a cause to which I believe she is committed—no amount of bombing is likely to stop friendly Arab Governments from planning violent actions throughout the world?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend is aware, we take as much action as we can to further the peace process between the Arab and Palestinian peoples in the middle east. We shall continue to do so. We have taken peaceful action against terrorism. Much of that action has, unfortunately, not secured its objective. The United States decided to exercise, in the light of a specific target, its right of self-defence. To have refused to have done so would have meant that we were supine and passive in the face of that terrorism.

Mr. Foot: Regarding the discussions that the right hon. Lady had with the American President in the past few days, can she say what discussion there was about the acceptable level of civilian destruction and murder that might follow an attack upon Libya? Did she try to restrain the actions of the President on that account? Does she understand that the worst way to deal with terrorism is to act like terrorists ourselves?

The Prime Minister: The discussion was to secure targets and action proportionate to the threat, and to ensure that the action taken by the United States was within article 51. The United States and we believe that that action was


within article 51. Could I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the leader that appeared in The Mirror yesterday—as robust a leader as I have ever seen?

Mr. Charles Morrison: Two weeks ago there was a skirmish between the United States and Libya. Yesterday there was a major attack by the United States on Libya. What convinces my right hon. Friend that this escalation in events will not continue?

The Prime Minister: There has been an escalation in terrorism for some time. We have all been subjected to it in this country, as well as elsewhere. The question was, at what time did one attempt, or the United States attempt, to invoke the right of self-defence, or were we to continue being passive and supine? I believe that, under the circumstances, the United States was acting within article 51 in exercising its inherent right of self-defence to try to turn the tide against terrorism, and to discourage those who engage in it and state-sponsored terrorism, from engaging in further attacks.

Dr. Owen: Does the Prime Minister agree that, under the Churchill-Truman agreement of 1952, the decision whether to use the bases was a matter for joint decision? Does that not lay an obligation on the Government to prove that article 51 has been fully used and to produce evidence to the Security Council?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Security Council has condemned terrorism. He is also aware that that condemnation has been without effect. It did not seem that further condemnation by the Security Council would have any effect this time. The right hon. Gentleman is right. The arrangements under which American bases are used in this country have been the same for well over 30 years and they have not changed. Under those arrangements, our agreement was required. It was sought and, after discussion and question, it was obtained on the basis that the action would be on targets that were within article 51.

Mr. Mates: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I will take points of order after questions.

Mr. Thurnham: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Thurnham: Although I welcome the Government's £3·6 million urban grant to regenerate industry in Bolton, will my right hon. Friend condemn Bolton's labour-controlled council, which is discouraging business with a 23 per cent. rate increase?

The Prime Minister: I understand that Bolton council has increased its expenditure by almost 13 per cent., which is about three or four times above the expected rate of inflation. I agree with my hon. Friend also that high rate increases drive away businesses, especially small businesses, and therefore jobs. I agree with my hon. Friend also that ratepayers have a right to expect good value for money. Therefore, there is some concern about the fact that Bolton has suspended its efficiency study.

Dr. M. S. Miller: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Dr. Miller: Did the right hon. lady consult our EEC partners, some of which are fellow members of NATO, about the attack on Tripoli and Benghazi? if she did not, why not? If she did, why did she choose to disregard their views?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary met some of our EEC partners yesterday. We did not consult them on the use of our bases. That is a matter for our decision.

Mr. Aitken: When my right hon. Friend took the difficult but wholly correct decision to permit the use of British bases for the United States attack, was she influenced not only by loyalty to an ally with a just cause, but by a much more practical consideration, namely, that fewer risks were likely to be caused to Libyan civilians and to United States military personnel if the United States used the much more precise equipment, the F 111, rather than carrier-based aircraft?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend is correct. That was a factor in the decision to use our bases and why those aircraft were especialy right for the action that was undertaken. We were also influenced by the fact that the United States has hundreds of thousands of forces in Europe to defend the liberty of Europe. In that capacity they have been subject to terrorist attack. It was inconceivable to me that we should refuse United States aircraft and pilots the opportunity to defend their people.

Mr. McWilliam: Why did the Prime Minister choose to authorise the use of British bases for this attack when the capability to mount that attack existed with the battle fleet not 300 miles north of the coast of Libya?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) indicated in an earlier question, the F 111s were required because they are more accurate on particular targets and because they would involve far less collateral damage and far less risk to American pilots. The Americans are our allies and put considerable effort into defending the freedom of Europe. I hope that hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Benches will remember that.

Mr. Terlezki: Am I right in assuming that there is a very strong link between the Libyan Government and the IRA, which results in the death of many innocent people in this country?

The Prime Minister: Yes, we have evidence that the Libyan Government support the Provisional IRA. That is also a factor which must be taken into account.

Mr. Foulkes: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Foulkes: Following the question from my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller), can the Prime Minister tell the House whether, when the Foreign Secretary was trying to persuade our European partners to take firm diplomatic action, he was aware that she had already authorised the use of this country as a glorified aircraft carrier for the United States, and is this what she means by co-operation with our European partners?

The Prime Minister: The Foreign Secretary and I have acted very closely together throughout. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the United States has more than 330,000 members of her forces in Europe to defend our liberty.
Because they are here, they are subject to terrorist attack. It is inconceivable that they should be refused the right to use American aircraft and American pilots in the inherent right of self-defence, to defend their own people.

Libya

The Prime Minister: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement about Libya. Before I do so, may I first say that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will shortly be making a business statement indicating that there will be a full day's debate on this matter tomorrow.
The House is aware that last night United States forces made attacks on specific targets in Libya.
The Government have evidence showing beyond dispute that the Libyan Government have been and are directly involved in promoting terrorist attacks against the United States and other Western countries, and that they had made plans for a wide range of further terrorist attacks.
The United Kingdom has itself suffered from Libyan terrorism. The House will recall the murder of WPC Fletcher in St. James's square. There is no doubt, moreover, of the Libyan Government's direct and continuing support for the Provisional IRA, in the form of money and weapons.
Two years ago, we took certain measures against Libya, including the closure of the Libyan people's bureau in London, restrictions on the entry of Libyans into the United Kingdom, and a ban on new contracts for the export to Libya of defence equipment. Yesterday the Foreign Ministers of the European Community reaffirmed their grave concern at Libyan-inspired terrorism and agreed on new restrictions against Libya.
Since we broke off diplomatic relations with Libya, we have had no choice but consistently to advise British nationals living and working there that they do so on their own responsibility. Our interests there have been looked after by the Italian Government. Our representative in the British interests section of the Italian Embassy will continue to advise the British community as best he can.
The United States has tried by peaceful means to deter Colonel Gaddafi and his regime from their promotion of terrorism, but to no effect.
President Reagan informed me last week that the United States intended to take military action to deter further Libyan terrorism. He sought British support for this action. He also sought agreement, in accordance with our long-standing arrangements, to the use in the operation of some United States aircraft based in this country. This approach led to a series of exchanges including a visit by Ambassador Walters on Saturday, 12 April.
Article 51 of the UN charter specifically recognises the right to self-defence. In view of Libya's promotion of terrorism, the failure of peaceful means to deter it and the evidence that further attacks were threatened, I replied to the President that we would support action directed against specific Libyan targets demonstrably involved in the conduct and support of terrorist activities; and, further, that if the President concluded that it was necessary, we would agree to the deployment of United States aircraft from bases in the United Kingdom for that purpose.
I reserved the position of the United Kingdom on any question of further action which might be more general or less clearly directed against terrorism.
The President assured me that the operation would be limited to clearly defined targets related to terrorism, and that the risk of collateral damage would be minimised. He made it clear that use of F111 aircraft from bases in the

United Kingdom was essential, because by virtue of their special characteristics they would provide the safest means of achieving particular objectives with the lowest possible risk both of civilian casualties in Libya and of casualties among United States service personnel.
Terrorism is a scourge of the modern age. Libya has been behind much of it and was planning more. The United Kingdom itself has suffered from Libya's actions. So have many of our friends, including several in the Arab world.
The United States, after trying other means, has now sought by limited military action to induce the Libyan regime to desist from terrorism. That is in the British interest. It is why the Government support the United States action.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: I realise, of course, that we are to have a debate tomorrow and I am grateful for that, but the speed at which events are moving means that I must ask the following questions.
First, did the Prime Minister speak directly and personally to President Reagan at any time before she decided that the attack on Libya by F111s could be launched from bases in Britain?.
Is it true that the decision not to veto the use of bases in Britain for action against Gaddafi was made by the right hon. Lady alone?
Is it true that the Foreign Secretary was not told of the American action until yesterday morning?
Is it true that the Cabinet Defence and Overseas Committee was not consulted at all until very late last night's?
If these statements are true, is it not the case that the Prime Minister has treated her Cabinet and her Government with the same contempt as that shown to her by the President of the United States?
Will the Prime Minister tell the House and the country whether she herself or her Foreign Secretary has actually seen or heard the evidence of which President Reagan spoke in his broadcast on television last night? Will she respond to the view that is held in all parts of the House, that the maximum possible amount of the evidence on which her decision and that of the President were based should be published? Will the Prime Minister accept that, even if there is such evidence against Gaddafi, last night's bombing cannot be justified as an act of self-defence under international law, for that international law requires that armed response to aggression be immediate, protective and proportionate to the scale of aggression?
Does not the Prime Minister think that her right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has to answer a serious charge of duplicity in his dealings with our European allies yesterday?
Is the Prime Minister aware that the distinguished and experienced diplomat, Sir Anthony Parsons, has condemned last night's action as a
kind of vigilantism more likely to provoke than prevent terrorism"?
Is the right hon. Lady aware that he has further said that he would have advised, when he was her adviser, that no such action should be taken until every possible measure through the United Nations and under international law had been exhausted?
Will the Prime Minister tell us whether she was advised to the same effect before she made her decision to support President Reagan? Will she now tell us whether she will


give an undertaking, here and now, that she will refuse to grant permission for the use of bases in Britain for any further similar action in similar circumstances by President Reagan?
Will the Prime Minister further accept that, far from bringing down a
curtain on Gaddafi's reign of terror",
as the President put it last night and as he claims, his adventure against Libya has failed to achieve the objective of terminating terrorism? Will she accept that it has caused bloodshed and damage to innocents, will result in a loss of American and British influence, even over moderate Arab states and has meant a gain in support for Gaddafi, even from his sworn enemies? Is it not obvious that this action and the way in which it was taken has fractured relationships with the Alliance?
Those are all terrible costs to pay. They are all reasons for us to condemn the United States action and all reasons why the right hon. Lady, as a true and candid friend of the United States and as a true enemy of terrorism, should join us in that condemnation.

The Prime Minister: I disagree totally with the right hon. Gentleman. I remind him again that the United States, our staunch ally, keeps over 330,000 troops in Europe to defend the freedom of Europe and that, without the United States and Britain, Europe would not today be free. We must continue to keep that Alliance.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me a number of questions. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence were in No. 10 when the initial message from the President was received and we have acted together in knowledge of one another's views throughout. We do not normally give the details, but it is known that the Overseas and Defence Committee of the Cabinet met on Monday morning.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me whether I have seen the evidence. Of course I have seen and examined our own intelligence evidence. He asked whether the maximum amount can be published without doing damage. We are naturally careful about intelligence efforts, because to publish it will compromise the sources and may therefore undermine our security. A certain amount has been given and I shall try to see that we will give as much as we can without undermining that security, because to undermine the security could be very damaging to the United Kingdom and our allies.
I have indicated, and I know that the United States takes the same view, that the selection of targets demonstrably in connection with terrorist activity was within article 51. That is my legal advice and I understand that it is the legal advice of the United States. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about moderate Arab states. May I remind him that moderate Arab states have also been the subject of terrorist attack and some of them understand very well what we are doing?

Mr. Julian Amery: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the staunch support she gave to our American allies in seeking to deter not just terrorism but a terrorist state which has been our enemy, as much as the enemy of the United States and of the moderate Arab countries? However, would she remind President Reagan of what Sir Winston Churchill said in his verdict on the Suez operation: "I don't know if I would have dared to start. I would never have dared to stop."?

The drastic action taken by the Americans yesterday will find its justification only if the terrorist state is finally prevented from continuing terrorism which it has carried out against us. Those who support Colonel Gaddafi are accessories to the murder of our police constable in this country and of many other people in other parts of the world.

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I am very much aware that, if there were to be any further action, it would also have to be justified under article 51. Precisely the same rules will apply to any further action as have applied to this. My right hon. Friend would be the first to understand that some risks have to be faced in order to try to turn the tide against terrorism. A great deal of action has so far been taken and attempted by the United States. It has come to Europe asking for further action, and we, in Europe, have been the country that has already taken the most. The United States did, not get much of a response from Europe in taking peaceful action. It had to turn to the possibility of the practical use of its right under article 51. We join the United States in hoping that that is an extra deterrent, and will encourage Colonel Gaddafi to desist from future terrorist attacks.

Mr. David Steel: Whatever the evidence, which is no doubt substantial, of Libyan-based terrorism, in what respect does the Prime Minister expect that that terrorism will be halted by what happened last night? Secondly, may I ask how it was that the Foreign Secretary, only yesterday, agreed unanimously with the European Ministers that increased military tension in the area would be dangerous, yet 12 hours later there was substantial increased military tension in the area? Thirdly, did the right hon. Lady seek to limit the permission for the use of British bases to military targets, and is she aware that the most appalling thing she said this afternoon was her use of the word "inconceivable", when she said that it would be inconceivable that she would ever refuse any request? Is not that writing a blank cheque for President Reagan?

The Prime Minister: We, of course, have direct evidence of Libyan-based terrorism in St. James's square. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not forget that—[Interruption.] Since then, there appears to have been an escalation of terrorism. If right hon. and hon. Members thought that we were not firm enough about that act, they should welcome the action that has now been taken and the support that has been given. We said not only that the action should be confined to military targets but that it should be confined to targets directly associated with terrorism. Indeed, the word that we used was "demonstrably" associated with terrorism, because we believed that we needed to do that to be within article 51.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the action of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary in Europe yesterday. A number of countries there had already had discussions with General Walters and had already been asked to take further action. I understand that the whole discussion in Europe between the Foreign Ministers took place on the basis that action might well be imminent, and my right hon. and learned Friend argued the case not only for action in self-defence but for a stronger Community response. There were some further new actions, but they were not very much.

Sir Ian Gilmour: Since the great evil of terrorism is the killing and wounding of innocent people, when my right hon. Friend made her difficult and, to my mind, mistaken decision, could she not have stipulated that the bases should not be used for attacks on targets in civilian areas, which were bound, and apparently seemed, to result in the killing of innocent people?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend heard the statement that I made, that the targets which were chosen must come within the inherent right of self-defence in article 51, and therefore must be demonstrably connected with terrorism. He will have seen the press conference in which Secretary Weinberger and Secretary Shultz took part, when they said that they deliberately chose targets demonstrably connected with terrorism, and also those that tried to minimise civilian casualties. There are always some risks, but I think that if one fails to take action under self-defence because some risks may be incurred, the people who take that view are saying that one can never tackle or take any action to reduce state-sponsored terrorism. In fact, one would have to cringe before Colonel Gaddafi without taking any further action.

Mr. Michael Foot: If the right hon. Lady is so confident that the American action was justified and legitimate under article 51, why did she not urge the President to go to the Security Council and see whether it agreed?

The Prime Minister: Because the Security Council has, in fact, condemned terrorism and state-sponsored terrorism before. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Security Council could not have taken any effective action, and has not been able to take effective action to deter state-sponsored terrorism. It utters excellent words. It is not able to carry out deeds.

Sir Peter Blaker: In view of the failure of past attempts to deal with the problem of Libyan terrorism, is not it perfectly clear that new ways have had to be found to attempt to deal with the problem? My right hon. Friend said that the evidence of Libyan complicity in past and planned terrorism was direct, and President Reagan has said that it was precise and irrefutable. In spite of the problems relating to the preservation of our intelligence, will my right hon. Friend consider the suggestion that has already been made—to which she has partly responded—and see whether more information about the evidence can be published?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I agree with him that the actions that we and other countries have taken so far have not had the effect of reducing Libyan state-sponsored terrorism. Indeed, it has escalated, and we have solid evidence that more was planned. I shall follow up what my right hon. Friend has said and see how much of the evidence we can place before the House, but obviously I am not willing to compromise intelligence sources. We shall do what we can, and I know that the House will understand.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Has it not become clear from these events to the people of this country how flimsy would be our protection against the use of bases on British soil for the launching of nuclear operations?

The Prime Minister: No. The right hon. Gentleman is asking about something totally different, and I believe that he knows it.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: As the whole House well knows how Colonel Gaddafi has set himself up as the godfather of international terrorism—there is no room for doubt about that—will my right hon. Friend be very careful when she considers the question of publication of evidence, whether it has been obtained by the penetration of Libyan terrorist networks, the interception of their communications or however? It is of great importance to us and many others that these sources should continue to give us warning of what this mad dog may do next.

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Of course I heed his warning. Some evidence has already been published in the United States. I shall see whether any more can safely be published, but I shall not step over the bounds of safety.

Dr. David Owen: Although the Prime Minister went to the Security Council at the time of the Falklands, surely her strictures on the Security Council were equally applicable at that time? She was at great pains always to act within article 51. Did not President Kennedy in 1962 place the satellite photographs of the missiles in Cuba before the United Nations, and did not that have a dramatic effect on world opinion? The right hon. Lady should not listen too much to her hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) and should publish as much of the information as possible—if necessary, to some extent overriding the natural caution of the intelligence officers.

The Prime Minister: Yes, we did go to the Security Council, but to report our action under article 51. Any action taken under article 51, including the action that has recently been taken by the United States, has to be reported to the Security Council. It is the country concerned that takes the action; it is the report that goes to the Security Council.

Mr. Michael Colvin: Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that international terrorism can best be countered by the free countries of the world working in concert, and that is why she was right to make her very difficult decision? In view of her confirmation that Libya is supporting the IRA, and given that we have now assisted the Americans in dealing with one of the worst terrorist threats to their country, would not it be reasonable to expect the Americans now to do a little more to help us to counter the IRA, which is one of the most serious terrorist threats against our country?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As he knows, the United States is meticulous in doing all it can to condemn the IRA and to stop any resources or weapons from coming to the assistance of the IRA. I am grateful to the United States for the action it is taking and I will put my hon. Friend's suggestion to it forcibly.

Mr. Leo Abse: Is it not clear from all the statements the Prime Minister has made that her passionate political infatuation with Reagan is leading her to the misjudgements of a giddy girl? Why is she feeding the paranoia of Gaddafi? Why is she providing him with corroboration of his crazy conspiratorial theories? Why does she provide him with a theatre in which he can place his self-immolating terrorists and allow them, as they


obviously now will, to come into this country? Is it not abundantly clear that the real immediate effect of her collusion is inevitably the importation of greater terrorist violence into Britain?

The Prime Minister: The United States stands by the NATO alliance, this country and Europe in defence of freedom. For that purpose it keeps hundreds of thousands of troops in Europe. In that capacity, American forces have been subject to terrorist attacks; and the complicity of Libya in those attacks is beyond doubt. Yet the hon. Gentleman is asking me to refuse the United States, in the face of those attacks and planned terrorist attacks, any right of self-defence, to use its own planes and its own pilots to defend its own people. It would be ridiculous to refuse it.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: Since most of these aircraft took off from the same bases in my constituency that gave us such valuable help before when our forces were landing in the Falklands, will my right hon. Friend ensure that proper counter-measures are available to protect local people, and indeed our own installations, from any Libyan revenge? More broadly, since the evidence of Libyan complicity in the killing, kidnap, and hijack of British as well as American citizens is incontrovertible, does she not agree that sovereign Governments have a right and a duty to go to the defence of their citizens, even though that may require attacks at the nerve centre of international terrorism?

The Prime Minister: I am very much aware of the courage of the people who live around the bases to which my hon. Friend refers, both during wartime and now. I assure him that we are very much aware that terrorists, including those supported by Libya, have shown by past actions that they have the capacity to undertake indiscriminate attacks. Military establishments and Government Departments have been placed at a high level of alert. On the basis of past attacks, it is important for members of the public to be alert to the possibility of indiscriminate attacks and to report anything suspicious. I agree with my hon. Friend: states not only have the right of self defence; there are times when they have the duty to exert it.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: As the Prime Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."] You'll listen! [Interruption.] As the Prime Minister is renowned for her limited understanding on a range of issues, particularly foreign affairs, and as she apparently prevented the Foreign Office yesterday from issuing a statement on this matter, will she try to appreciate and get her cretinous buddy, the American President, to appreciate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—and try to get the American President to appreciate that such attacks—[AN HON. MEMBER: "Exit Right."]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Faulds: You might not like it, but you are going to hear it—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to give the hon. Member a fair chance or we shall be here all afternoon.

Mr. Faulds: Will the right hon. Lady get her cretinous friend the American President—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member well knows that such phrases are not used in relation to other Heads of State.

Mr. Faulds: Will the Prime Minister tell the American President that attacks such as those that he and she have launched on Libya will only alienate our Arab friends, give an enormous impetus to Islamic fundamentalism, to which there must have been millions of converts today, and enormously damage our interests and our embassies throughout the world?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman refers to understanding. Perhaps he would cast the beam out of his own eye first.

Mr. Faulds: What a feeble response. You have not got a case, you cretin.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an important statement on which every Back Bencher wants an opportunity to speak. I ask the hon. Member to contain himself.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Fortunately, perhaps, I did not hear the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds).

Hon. Members: We did.

Mr. Speaker: I did not. If the hon. Member has cast a slur on any right hon. or hon. Member, I know him well enough to realise that he will withdraw.

Mr. Faulds: I cast no slur on the honour of any right hon. Member. I simply described the intellectual ability, quite correctly.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member did that in an unparliamentary way, he should withdraw.

Mr. Faulds: I am sorry to prolong this matter because this is an important issue. The word I used has been allowed in the House. I have used it before.

Mr. Speaker: Nevertheless, and even though I did not hear it—I think other hon. Members did—I ask the hon. Member to withdraw it.

Mr. Ian Gow: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, four years ago when faced with the impotence of the Security Council and despite criticism from within and without the House, she took military action to uphold international law? Does she agree that the advice of the Leader of the Opposition and the last Labour Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), to put our trust in the Security Council is unrealistic? Does my right hon. Friend agree that her decision yesterday was totally justified?

The Prime Minister: The advice merely to go to the Security Council would be totally unrealistic in taking action to stop state-sponsored terrorism. I have no doubt that the action will be reported to the Security Council. The Security Council is not in a position to take effective action. We received splendid support from the United States, far beyond the call of duty, for the action taken four years ago.

Mr. Terry Davis: Is the right hon. Lady saying that under article 51 the killing and wounding of innocent people with a bomb in a nightclub justifies killing and wounding other innocent people with a bomb from an F111?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is not giving the whole case. There has been unparalleled state-sponsored terrorism from Libya. There is evidence of Libyan complicity. The terrorism has been escalating. There is evidence that future attacks are planned. There is an inherent right of self-defence. Risks are involved in exercising that inherent right. If one never took any action because of the risks involved, the alternative would be to be totally and utterly passive and supine before Colonel Gaddafi and anyone else who practises state-sponsored terrorism.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to take account of the business on the Order Paper and the fact that the prayer tonight must end at 11.30 pm. I shall allow questions to continue for a further five minutes; and then we must proceed.

Mr. John Browne: Does my right hon. Friend accept that her statement with regard to indisputable evidence will be widely welcomed?
Does she agree that the threat of world terrorism is far more serious than seems to be appreciated by the Opposition? In the near future, terrorist overlords such as Gaddafi may be able to dispatch atomic bombs, if not by missile, then in the cargo holds of scheduled civilian aircraft. In view of such a threat to world peace, is it not our leaders' clear duty to face this threat with fortitude and note that it is extremely unwise merely to tease a dangerous snake—it must be either left alone or killed?

The Prime Minister: I believe that there is no country other than Libya where there is a Government who have inspired such a remorseless campaign of terrorist attacks and where we have specific evidence of their complicity in them. In those circumstances, I believe that the United States was absolutely within its rights to exercise its right of self-defence. It was United States action. It required the use of our bases. We gave our support to the action of the United States and our consent to the use of its bases here.

Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the right hon. Lady aware that no country has a better record for firm, intelligent and calculated responses to terrorism than Britain? Is it not incredible in the light of that record that the right hon. Lady should associate us with President Reagan's emotional spasm which has left the world a more dangerous place and imperilled the lives of some British citizens? Will the right hon. Lady tell President Reagan, now that she has repaid her Falklands debt to him, that, the next time American bombers from Britain are used, they will be used only for NATO purposes?

The Prime Minister: I disagree. To leave a terrorist Government sponsoring terrorism the world over, secure in the knowledge that no other Government would ever take any action under the right of self-defence, would be to increase the danger of terrorism the world over.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that most of the recent terrorist incidents involving the middle east have been put down to the Abu Nidel group rather than the Libyans? Is she aware that many of us are deeply troubled by her uncritical support for the United States, which has grossly overreacted to provocation? Does my right hon. Friend agree that this over-reaction can only fuel terrorism, bitterness and bloodshed?

The Prime Minister: I disagree totally with my hon. Friend. The United States had constantly asked Europe to take other action against state-sponsored terrorism. It had asked for economic sanctions. It asked that we should all expel the Libyan people's bureaux. Over many years, Europe has taken a totally insufficient action. In the face of the evidence of Libya's complicity in terrorist acts and evidence of future planned actions, I believe that the United States was right and had a duty to invoke its right of self-defence. I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate the staunch alliance by the United States in NATO in defending this country's freedom.

Mr. Tom Clarke: In view of the Prime Minister's reference to the St. James's square incident, does she not recall that on that occasion the Foreign Secretary twice advised the House—on 25 April and 1 May 1984—against taking the type of action which the United States has now involved us in? Does she not accept that to invoke the name of a distinguished police officer, who was defending the law, to condone one of the most outrageous acts of international illegality is outrageous and unacceptable to the people of this country?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is aware that, since that time, terrorism has escalated further. We have evidence of Libyan complicity in that state terrorism and we have evidence that more acts are planned. [HON. MEMBERS: "Publish."] Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen are saying that we should be totally supine and passive in the face of those attacks. We do not accept that.

Mr. Michael Mates: Does my right hon. Friend agree that double standards are applied to the type of action we are discussing? If it had been carried out by the Israelis, the Syrians, Iraqis or Iranians, for the purpose of prosecuting their interests, it would barely have made the front page of the news. [HON. MEMBERS: "It would be wrong."]
Is it not precisely because this action has been taken by the most powerful democracy in the free world, that, in order that it should be understood by ordinary people, it must be further explained? Will my right hon. Friend do all that she can to see that the reasons which were adduced to her and caused her to give the support, which I wholeheartedly back, are explained to the public tomorrow in the debate—in particular, the intimations that we had of future terrorist action which would make this whole event totally justified?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I think the people of this country very much understand the need to take all legitimate action against Colonel Gaddafi and state-sponsored terrorism.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: If, as the Downing street public relation machine led us to believe, the Prime Minister strongly counselled the President against military action in Libya, will she tell us, as she has not yet done, what were the precise reasons which led her to make British bases available for such action?

The Prime Minister: As I said in my statement, it was understood that the United States was intending to take military action and we understood that one of the reasons was that it had constantly asked Europe to take action against state-sponsored terrorism by other means. The


response had been inadequate, terrorism had escalated and the evidence was there. The United States therefore decided to exercise its right of self-defence.
I was concerned to do everything I could to see that what action the United States took was solely within the right of self-defence. I was concerned to see that there was full legal justification for it.
Once I was assured that that was so, it seemed to be perfectly reasonable to give our consent to the United States using American aircraft and American pilots from this country in accordance with our agreement, so that they may have more accurate bombing and less collateral damage, and fewer casualties to American pilots. That was the reason. I would have taken the same decision again.

Mr. Derek Conway: Will my right hon. Friend take it from one who has visited Libya and Tripoli that no amount of words and gestures would dissuade Colonel Gaddafi from trading and financing international terrorism to destabilise this country and other democracies in the west? The action by the American President is totally justifiable and my right hon. Friend's support for that will be proven to be right. But it will not be right until Colonel Gaddafi's evil regime is smashed and his funding of terrorism is stopped.

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. The action had to be such that it had the full legal justification for it, and our advice was that it was within article 51. I understand that that is the advice the United States also received. We have no quarrel with the Libyan people but we do have a quarrel with state-sponsored terrorism.
Later—

Mr. Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A few minutes ago, you asked me to withdraw the word "cretin" or "cretinous"—I think that that was the word to which you referred. If you check the official record, however, I think that you will find that the word has been used frequently and that the hon. Members concerned have not been asked to withdraw it. As you asked me to withdraw the word, Mr. Speaker, and after a few moments' quiet contemplation out of the Chamber, I shall willingly accede to your request.

Mr. Speaker: I am very grateful for the hon. Gentleman's typically chivalrous attitude.

Business of the House

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement.
The business for the rest of the week will now be as follows:
WEDNESDAY 16 APRIL—There will be a debate on Libya on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Motion relating to the Education (Schools and Further Education) (Amendment) Regulations.
Motion on the Commission on Disposals of Land (Northern Ireland) Order.
THURSDAY 17 APRIL—Remaining stages of the Agriculture Bill.
FRIDAY 18 APRIL—Private Members' Bills.
The business originally announced for Thursday 17 April will be further discussed through the usual channels.

Mr. David Alton: First of all, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for acceding to the request by my right hon. and hon. Friends that there should be a full debate on the Libyan question. What will happen to the education debate, which is scheduled for Thursday? Can the right hon. Gentleman give me some idea when that will be held?

Mr. Biffen: It will be subject to negotiation with the usual channels. I quite understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety that the debate should be as soon as possible.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider taking the Report stage of the Agriculture Bill on Thursday, because the amendments of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food appeared for the first time only last Friday? There has been quite inadequate time to give detailed consideration to the seven pages of new clauses on the crucially important matter of compensation for milk quota for tenants who are ending their tenancies.
Since we understand that the Minister of Agriculture has influenza and since the legislative programme is much less constrained than it was, can we not put this off for a week for the benefit of everyone including the Government?

Mr. Biffen: I take note of what my hon. Friend has said. From his point of view I feel that there is at least a modest advantage in that there will now be a further day before the remaining stages of the Agriculture Bill are considered.
I understand the importance my hon. Friend attaches to the question of milk quotas. In my constituency capacity I can underline that. There are still problems with the legislative programme. We hope, of course, to be sending this legislation to another place, where it will not have the other considerations of the Shops Bill.

Mr. Dave Nellist: The Leader of the House has rearranged tomorrow's business so that there may be a full debate on Libya. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that, before the debate begins, the Foreign Secretary makes a statement which explains whether there were consultations with the French President about the so-called terrorists hiding in the French embassy in Tripoli which led the Prime Minister to give authority for bombers from British bases to bomb the French


embassy. What narrow definition of state-sponsored terrorism does the Foreign Secretary have that excludes South Africa, which is operating in southern Africa, and the American backing of the Contras in Nicaragua?

Mr. Biffen: I will, of course, draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to the points that the hon. Gentleman has made so that he may take account of them when he takes part in tomorrow's debate. I think it may be for the benefit of a better structured debate if such a statement could be contained within the debate rather than have a statement preceding the debate.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Since the opportunity for an urgent debate on the Prime Minister's support for the interventionism and military adventurism of the American President has displaced the debate on regional policy, which was an essential subject for Opposition Members can the Leader of the House give us an assurance that, since the Prime Minister has said that it would be inconceivable to refuse a United States request of this kind, our debate will not be further disrupted by more American military action supported by the Prime Minister and her right hon. and learned Friend?

Mr. Biffen: That is an extremely ingenious question and I shall restrict myself to the same generalised reply that I gave the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton).

Mr. Ron Brown: As the Prime Minister allegedly opposes terrorism, will she be given an opportunity tomorrow, when making a statement, to explain why Abdul Haq was brought to Britain and wined, dined and feted in Downing street when he planted the bomb at Kabul airport which exploded in 1984 and killed 28 people? If that terrorist was brought here, why do the Government condemn others who do something similar? Is it not—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going very wide of the business for the rest of the week.

Mr. Biffen: Perhaps I can help by saying that I shall ensure that those observations are conveyed to 10 Downing street.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the evidence to which the Prime Minister referred and which she offered to publish in part be available in the Library before tomorrow's debate? If the Leader of the House does not know the answer, will he, through the usual channels, communicate a reply before the close of business today so that further discussions can take place? It is clear that that evidence is available in written form and could be made public.

Mr. Biffen: Yes, if the more conventional manifestations of the usual channels would like to take that up.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is tomorrow's debate only on Libya, or will it be possible for the Government to give more general guidance on the Anglo-American alliance, bearing in mind the British lives that were saved by American help when we had problems in the Falkland Islands?

Mr. Biffen: I am sure that, if my hon. Friend is fortunate enough to be called tomorrow, he will want to make his arguments, although the extent to which they will be in order is not a matter for me.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: It would be a good idea to have the evidence to which my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) referred available to the House before tomorrow's debate. In view of the Prime Minister's reluctance to answer questions today about the nature of the supposed conversation between the US President and herself, would it not make sense to have more details of what happened during that conversation? There is a strong suspicion that no conversation in the accepted sense of the word took place but that the Prime Minister was told by President Reagan that the Americans would use British bases, and that there were no other consultations. She failed to answer those significant questions today and it would be helpful if we could have an answer before tomorrow's debate.

Mr. Biffen: Of course I shall refer to 10 Downing street the suggestion that such information might be made available before tomorrow's debate.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will we know in advance of tomorrow's debate the status of the several hundred Libyan pilots and engineers who are training in Britain? Will it be changed by the American action?

Mr. Biffen: That is a very material point. I shall draw my hon. Friend's observations to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary so that he may bear them in mind when he speaks tomorrow.

Sir Peter Emery: I hoped that I would not have had to put this question. Will my right hon. Friend make it absolutely clear, if not before tomorrow's debate, at least during it, that Britain's support of the Americans in their action against Libya is in no way an attack on any other Arab nation, and that it would be quite wrong for the rest of the Arab world to interpret our support as an attack?

Mr. Biffen: I take my hon. Friend's point, especially in the light of earlier exchanges. I shall ensure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is made aware of what my hon. Friend said.

Leasehold Reform (Flats)

Mr. Alfred Dubs: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to give long leaseholders a right to buy their flats, to extend their leases, to establish rights regarding repairs, service charges, the appointment of managing agents, management fees, insurance, and legal aid; and for connected purposes.
The Bill addresses the problems of long leaseholders in blocks of flats. They are all too often neglected or forgotten. The Bill would give them a wide-ranging right to buy their flats and to extend leases when they are near expiry. It would also give them much stronger rights concerning repairs, service charges, the appointment of managing agents, the level of management fees, insurance, legal aid and related matters.
As recently as 8 April, the Secretary of State for the Environment said in reply to a parliamentary question:
It is now clear that there are severe problems affecting the management of many blocks of Hats."—[Official Report, 8 April 1986; Vol. 95, c. 27.]
The need for reform is urgent. That is accepted by such diverse bodies as the Consumers' Association, the Federation of Private Residents' Associations, numerous law centres, the Building Societies Association and many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.
There are many horror stories of what has happened to leaseholders when their relationships with their freeholders have gone wrong. Many stem from my constituency, but the problems that I shall describe, and which the Bill would attempt to remedy, occur in many parts of London and the rest of the country. The examples that I shall give are merely typical.
There is the story of people who bought the freehold and were then asked to pay £10,000 each for repairs. They had not been forewarned that the freeholders had neglected repairs for many years. There is the story of elderly tenants who paid rent and were advised, to achieve security in their declining years, to buy the freehold. When they did, they were immediately confronted by large bills for repairs which they had to pay the freeholder but could not afford.
There are difficulties associated with freeholders who have sinking funds. They keep large sums of money, on which they earn interest, but which rightly belong to the leaseholders. If the freeholder goes bankrupt, that money has hitherto been lost to the leaseholders. There are many problems associated with freeholders who fail to carry out essential repairs, much to the detriment of the life of the leaseholders.
In Battersea, a freeholder paid £600 for the freehold of a block of flats and shortly afterwards tried to sell it on for £6,000, each flat. There are problems with complicated leases which do not protect the holders. Solicitors have failed to draw attention to them. There are leaseholders who complain bitterly that they cannot identify the freeholder and that no letter seems to get to him. They must deal with insensitive managing agents. Enormous difficulties face leaseholders when there are such disputes. They cannot sell leases, but are compelled to retain their flats even when they wish to leave them. Hitherto, remedy for many has been expensive and clumsy litigation, or has been unavailable.
The Government noted the problem and established the Nugee committee of inquiry which considered the management of privately owned blocks of flats and

reported only a few months ago. It represented a welcome step in the right direction by giving the right of first refusal of freeholds to occupiers. It considered diverse matters such as insurance, service charges and managing agents.
I nevertheless feel that it is right to propose my Bill because I want to reinforce the Nugee committee's recommendations and because they do not go far enough. Lo and behold, on 8 April, the Secretary of State said that he accepted the "thrust of Nugee" in regard to several of its recommendations. That is good, and it is a sign that these 10-minute Bills have a quick effect. He also decided to go a little bit further than Nugee and to give leaseholders the right to buy if the court was satisfied that the landlord had consistently failed in his duties. Unfortunately that will not be too useful because the difficulty of persuading a court will be beyond the legal resources and the energies of many leaseholders.
My Bill is intended to go further than Nugee in a number of ways and also to reinforce Nugee where those recommendations are adequate. First, the Bill endorses the Nugee recommendation that there should be a right to buy when a freeholder sells. That means that the leaseholder should have first refusal. To go beyond Nugee, if a majority of residents in a block wish to buy they should have an absolute right to do so. Unlike Nugee, I believe that when leases are approaching the date of expiry—that means in practice something under 40 years—leaseholders should have the right to extend their leases. The building societies have endorsed that.
I wish to give residents a major say in the appointment of managing agents and in setting management fees, and to give them far more rights than Nugee proposes about making sure that maintenance is adequately carried out, that service charges are reasonable, and that where there is a sinking fund it is set at an appropriate level and that the rates of interest are such that the benefits go to the leaseholders. I want to make sure that repairs are carried out, that several tenders are sought by the freeholder, and that the leaseholders have a say in the process. I want to give leaseholders far more say about insurance, and I seek to ensure that if the building should be burned down or destroyed, some of the insurance benefits will go to the leaseholders and not as at present to the freeholders.
Legal remedies should be made much easier, and the Nugee recommendations that the Government have not so far accepted about housing assessors attached to county courts should be implemented. There should be legal aid for leaseholders who find themselves in difficulties and cannot afford the law. There should be model clauses for leases that would provide standard and basic protection and could normally be used for all such arrangements. Although it is not appropriate in a 10-minute Bill, I should like to see a further investigation of the Australian practice of what is called the strata title system as an alternative to the leasehold tenure which is typical in Britain. That needs examination but, as I say, it is not appropriate in this Bill to go into that sort of detail.
For too long the rights of leaseholders have been neglected. Most politicians have turned their backs on them, even though leaseholders are vulnerable and cannot operate in the free market so beloved of the Government. That is because once they have got their leasehold, they are unable to sell a property and cannot escape unless they have a satisfactory arrangement with the freeholders. It is urgent that the House should pass this legislation and then


move on towards recognising and fully implementing the Nugee proposals and taking them further. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Alfred Dubs, Mr. Nick Raynsford, Mr. Clive Soley, Mr. Chris Smith, Mr. Stuart Holland, Mr. Brian Sedgemore, Mr. Frank Field, Mr. Nicholas Brown and Mr. Frank Dobson.

LEASEHOLD REFORM (FLATS)

Mr. Alfred Dubs accordingly presented a Bill to give long leaseholders a right to buy their flats, to extend their leases, to establish rights regarding repairs, service charges, the appointment of managing agents, management fees, insurance, and legal aid; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 9 May and to be printed. [Bill 133.]

Social Security Bill (Allocation of Time)

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I beg to move, That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:

Committee

1.—(1) The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 1st May 1986.

(2) Proceedings on the Bill at a sitting of the Standing Committee on the said 1st May may continue until Ten o'clock, whether or not the House is adjourned before that time, and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 2nd May.

Report and Third Reading

2.—(1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in two allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the second of those days; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 45 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on Consideration such part of those days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.

(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolutions as to the proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.

(3) The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 45 may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.

(4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on Consideration of the Bill are taken.

Procedure in Standing Committee

3.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.

(2) No Motion shall be moved in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who makes, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.

4. No Motion shall be moved to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.

Conclusion of proceedings in Committee

5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

Dilatory Motions

6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be moved in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time on allotted days

7.—(1) On an allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.

(2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 10 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of two hours.

(3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10 stands


over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of two hours.

Private business

8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

Conclusion of proceedings

9.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others), that is to say—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to a bring to decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is moved by a Member of the Government;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;
(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall he postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders

10.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—


(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or
(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Re-committal

12.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of re-committal.

(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to re-commit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation

13. In this Order—
allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day or is set down for consideration on that day;
the Bill" means the Social Security Bill;
Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

I should like to apologise to the House and to you, Mr. Speaker, for the fact that, because of my responsibilities to the Privileges Committee, I shall have to leave the debate at a certain stage.

A Social Security Bill is a familiar part of the Westminster process. Over the past 10 years or so, only three Sessions have been devoid of such a Government Bill, and in the Session beginning 1974 the House considered no fewer than six Government Bills dealing with some aspect of social security. This is a sign of the continuing importance that Parliament attaches to this subject. Although we are considering the passage of just one Bill, there is no doubt about its significance.

I shall begin by outlining the background to this legislation, and say a few words about its progress so far. I shall then deal with the terms of the timetable motion and why it is so important that the Bill should reach the statute book. Finally, I shall say a few words about the role of the House of Lords in our legislative responsibilities.

The House will be familiar with the areas covered by the Bill. Its proposals were drawn up after a wide and extensive consultation exercise which began in the autumn of 1983 with an inquiry into retirement. Examinations of family support, housing benefit and supplementary benefit followed. In June last year my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services published a Green Paper which stimulated intense public debate. Six months later, having taken into account the views expressed, my right hon. Friend announced to the House on 16 December publication of his firm plans for reform in the White Paper.

The Bill based on the White Paper was brought forward following a commitment made in the Queen's Speech. It was given a Second Reading on 28 January by 278 votes to 201, and began its consideration in Standing Committee on 4 February—over two months ago. It has been there ever since, and less than half the Bill has been considered.

Progress in Committee has been slow but steady. The Committee has held 30 sittings and been in session for about 115 hours. Thirty-four hours were spent on part I of the Bill, dealing with pensions, and 49 hours on part II


which deals with income-related benefits. Both of these are important aspects of the social security system, but if progress continued at the present rate more than 250 hours in Committee would be required to consider all 70 clauses and eight schedules of the Bill. The House will appreciate that that amount of time is simply not available if the Bill is to reach the statute book this Session. I shall explain in a moment why I feel it should do so, but first I should say a few words about the motion.

The motion, if passed, would require the Committee to report the Bill to the House on or before 1 May. I understand that the Committee has agreed to sittings motions allowing it to hold a further 10 sittings before that date. Half of these would be afternoon sittings at which the Committee would be able to sit into the evening, though not into the early hours of the morning. This seems a sensible way of using the remaining time for discussing profitably the rest of the Bill. Once the Bill returns to the House, two days are allocated to its remaining stages, and on the first of these days proceedings may continue until midnight. Again, this seems a not unreasonable amount of time.

It will be apparent that the terms of the motion require progress in Standing Committee to be faster than hitherto. This constraint is necessary for the Bill to receive reasonable attention in another place as well as Royal Assent this Session. Quite apart from the general principle that the elected Government are entitled to assume that their proposals, which reflect the will of the majority in the House, should be implemented, the Bill deserves to be brought into force. It is the result of a major consultation and review of our social security system, and it proposes fundamental reforms.

Part I of the Bill would give everyone the right to a personal pension and make it simpler for occupational pension schemes to contract out of the state earnings-related pensions scheme. In addition, it would modify the state earnings-related pension scheme and significantly reduce its costs in the next century.

Parts II, III and IV of the Bill deal respectively with income-related benefits, the setting up of the social fund and changes to benefits payable under the Social Security Act 1975. The new basis for the three income-related benefits of income support, family credit and housing benefit is designed particularly to simplify the system and to alleviate the position of those presently in the poverty and unemployment trap. The social fund will provide grants to replace the old maternity and death grants and will enable the social fund officers to make payments for special and emergency needs. Part V of the Bill is primarily concerned with simplifying administration by providing common rules for a range of payments.

While I recognise that there is much that is contentious in the Bill, equally I think there would be broad agreement with making new arrangements for payments which have not been revised for the past 15 years or so, such as the maternity and death grants, and simplifying the way in which benefits can be claimed and administered. It would be a waste of the time, thought and effort which has been given to this Bill, not by the Government alone, if its proposals remained just on paper, not because they had been defeated in a Division, but merely because there was insufficient time for the Bill to complete its passage.

It is perhaps appropriate also, in the context of a Bill which has aroused such strong feelings in this place and in the public at large, to mention the role of the other place in considering legislation. The other place has shown that it takes seriously its role as a revising Chamber, and no doubt it will continue to do so.

I do not make this point in the context of the expected fortunes of this Bill in another place. It is something we can observe for the behaviour of their Lordships over a whole range of domestic legislation. It is just possible that the greater disposition to amend and use their constitutional powers arises because this Administration do not threaten abolition of the second Chamber. At any rate, I do not complain about the greater current legislative liveliness of another place, but I say that it provides another factor in the balance of time and progress of legislation between the two Houses. Of course it is not a major factor, but neither is it a negligible consideration. Meanwhile, I have no doubt that those organisations and members of the public who have conducted a campaign against this Bill will be concerned to see that there is sufficient time for it to be thoroughly considered in another place.

The House will have seen from what I have said that we attach great importance to this Bill reaching the statute book. It is the result of an extensive review, and its own results will be far-reaching. Consideration of the Bill in Standing Committee has been constructive and progress has been made, but we need now to take action to ensure that the Bill does not fall for want of time. I believe that the terms of the motion before the House represent a sensible and measured way of achieving this, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Peter Shore: The House has listened to the Leader of the House argue the case for guillotining this Bill. It was rather a thin case. I do not think that he has managed to convince himself, let alone the Opposition and a number of anxious Members on his own Back Benches.
I was struck straight away by the sharp contrast between the speech today of the Leader of the House and the one that he delivered on 17 February when we last debated a guillotine motion. That related to the Gas Bill. In giving the background to that Bill and to that guillotine the Leader of the House was able and glad to cite the authority of the Conservative party's general election manifesto of 1983 which contained the following passage:
In the next Parliament, we shall seek
means of
attracting private capital into the gas and electricity industries.
So be it, but no such manifesto authority underlies this Bill. Not a word appeared in the Conservative party's manifesto foreshadowing what is probably the most important measure of this Parliament.
I recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John), who was then the Labour party's spokesman on social services, wrote to the Prime Minister, as a number of disquieting and disturbing reports had been leaked from the think tank, and asked her:
Will you confirm the Conservative party's commitment to maintaining in its present form the earnings-related state pension scheme introduced by the last Labour Government?
The following day my hon. Friend received a reply from the Prime Minister, from which I quote the last paragraph:
Nor are there any plans to change the earnings-related component of the state pension. The 1975 Act was in fact brought on to the statute book with the full support of Conservative members. Yours sincerely, Margaret Thatcher.
This Bill is the most blatant, cynical and shameful breach of a specific election pledge that I have ever come across. We shall make sure that the country understands this when the right time comes. That will be when we face the electorate again.
The Leader of the House referred to the various review committees. Although there have been review committees which have invited comments and evidence on each of the major component parts of the social security system, they have not been in any sense independent reviews. Indeed, the Government have gone out of their way to reject the notion that a Royal Commission or a commission of inquiry was appropriate. Instead, they appointed Ministers at the Department of Health and Social Security, of whose great abilities we are all aware, to act as chairmen of the separate review committees. In other words, no attempt has been made to draw upon the authority of an independent review body, let alone to continue the tradition of near consensus that was established 43 years ago when the Beveridge committee produced its blueprint for our postwar welfare state.
As the Second Reading debate on the Bill made plain, it is opposed not only by the Labour party and the other opposition parties, but by a substantial number of Government Back Benchers. Of the eight Conservative non-ministerial speeches that were made during the Second Reading and money resolution debates on 28 January 1986, no fewer than five were highly critical of the Government. The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym) called for a Royal Commission and recommended that
the whole approach to the modernisation and recasting of the social security system should be broadly based across the political spectrum…In social security we deal with the lives and needs of individuals and families. It is our duty to make not only the best provision, but to provide a simple, understandable and stable system which is not subject to constant change as a result of any war between political parties. The British people deserve better than that."—[Official Report, 28 January 1986; Vol. 90, c. 842.]
That sound advice has been contemptuously rejected. This is the most controversial measure that has been introduced in the last seven years and it intimately affects the great bulk of the nation.
As the Leader of the House most certainly conceded, the scope of the Bill is immense. It includes not only future provisions for state, occupational and personal pensions; a new approach to income-related benefits, including income support which is to replace supplementary benefit; family credit, which is to replace family income supplement and major changes in housing benefit, but the establishment of the new and retrograde social fund; the abolition of maternity and death grants; and major administrative changes affecting citizens' rights of appeal against decisions by DHSS officers. It is at least four Bills rolled into one.
Despite all this, nobody can fairly assert—and to be fair, I do not think that the Leader of the House asserted it—that the Committee has not given the most serious consideration to the Bill's provisions. The Committee has already dealt with the whole of part I, dealing with pensions, the whole of part II, dealing with income-related benefits, as well as part III, which establishes the social fund.
Let the House consider for a moment just what this scrutiny has entailed. The pension rights of 21 million people who are at work are affected by part I. While the earnings-related pensions of those over the age of 52 are protected and while those between the ages of 41 and 52 are partly protected, all those between the ages of 18 and 41 who are now at work will be adversely affected by the proposals. SERPS has been mutilated, halved in value, with a vast saving of £12·5 billion to be achieved by 2033.
This mutilation has been brought about by three major changes. First, earnings-related pensions are to be based not on the best 20 years of earnings but on the average of a lifetime's earnings. Secondly, pensions will be based not on 25 per cent. of those earnings but on only 20 per cent. Both these provisions are highly disadvantageous to the lower-paid and I think in particular to women whose careers, as we all know, are frequently interrupted by child-bearing and child-rearing. The third change affects 11 million pensioners in contracted-out occupational pension schemes and those who in future choose personal pensions as well because they will have their inflation proofing reduced in value to a new limit of 3 per cent. per annum. I remind the Government that that goal of a 3 per cent. inflation rate has not yet been reached by this Government in nearly seven years of office and in spite of massive fiscal and monetary deflation and the creation of an army of 4 million unemployed.
Is it really alleged that 35 hours of debate on provision of such scope and controversy were not justified? I am amazed that such economy of discussion has been achieved in the Committee. Similarly, with the income-related benefits, on which some 40 hours were spent, the Leader of the House cannot expect proposals to replace supplementary benefit with all its carefully tailored special payments and allowances for the disabled, the old and the unemployed, to be passed on the nod. It simply is not possible. Nor can he expect a £500 million cut in housing benefit, which will hurt hundreds of thousands of pensioners, and the requirement in clause 20(5) that every household, however poor, should in future contribute towards local rates or to the proposed community charge, not to be strongly probed and challenged. Nor can the introduction of family credit be accepted without vigorous examination and debate.
Then comes part III, the so-called social fund, probably the most controversial and retrograde of all the Bill's proposals. Four features of this scheme call out for the most serious scrutiny of which the Committee is capable: they are, first, the empowering of social fund officers to make discretionary payments as they think fit or, rather, as the Secretary of State thinks fit; secondly, the imposition of global cash limits on the size of the fund; thirdly, the substitution of single payment grants by recoverable loans and fourthly, the lack of appeals machinery.
The House will recall that on Second Reading there were three interventions in the Secretary of State's speech. He will remember them well, they were on this very subject and he could not answer them at the time. First, the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) said:
What worries me—I hope my right hon Friend the Secretary of State will comment on this—is that inevitably one could get two similar cases in different parts of the country judged by two different fund officers coming up with different


conclusions. In the light of that, will he consider whether there should be a fall back position which would enable applicants, under certain conditions to apply for an independent tribunal?
Then there was my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who is in his place now, who very pertinently asked the following question:
As the Secretary of State says that the aim of the social fund is to meet individual needs, how can he guarantee that that objective will be met with the cash limit to the fund?
Thirdly, the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) quoted from the special report by the Council on Tribunals:
'The Council on Tribunals believes this proposal to be misconceived, and stresses: 'It would abolish a right of independent appeal that has existed for over 50 years.'
All that the Secretary of State would say on that occasion was that he was "open to argument" and that
hon. Members will wish to put forward alternative suggestions on how it could be done, and the Government will listen to the arguments."—[Official Report, 28 January 1986; Vol. 90, c. 827–8.]
Arguments have been put forward in Committee, but still there is no Government answer. Does the Leader of the House really believe that these arguments and suggestions, which the Secretary of State himself has admitted need full discussion on so vital a matter, can be properly' dealt with on Report under a guillotine motion? When we last debated a guillotine motion, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House commented on the proposal of the Select Committee on Procedure for automatically guillotining controversial Bills. He said:
We should not rush to impose guillotines on Bills on which it is ultimately possible to reach agreement. The Police and Criminal Evidence Bill was controversial, but completed its passage without the need for a timetable motion, despite more then 145 hours in Committee."—[Official Report, 17 February 1986; Vol. 92, c. 45.]
The Opposition have been reasonable and measured and have made progress throughout the Committee stage of the Bill. It should have been possible to reach agreement on the remaining stages without imposing a guillotine. No one in his senses would argue that the Bill is less important and less deserving of consideration than the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, to which the Leader of the House referred in the speech from which I quoted, important as that measure was. This Bill is far more important than the now dead Shops Bill which only yesterday the Home Secretary was promising the House would not be subjected to a guillotine.
Of course the Opposition object deeply and sincerely to this Bill with its major assault on the welfare state. But it is precisely because its provisions will affect the great majority of our fellow citizens that we have been determined to do our duty and, where we cannot remove its most obnoxious features, at least to mitigate their effects and to propose improving amendments.
I strongly recommend the rejection of this timetable motion, and I hope that others in all parts of the House will join the Opposition in the Division Lobby this evening.

Mr. David Evennett: I have had the privilege to serve on the Standing Committee that has been deliberating on the Bill, the first on which I have had the pleasure of serving. I particularly wanted to serve on the Committee because the Bill is aimed at simplifying and

rationalising our social security system, a system which is far too complex and bureaucratic, and often fails to provide the necessary help to people in real need.
It is essential for this important and radical measure to get on to the statute book, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has already mentioned. The timetable motion is necessary for it to reach the statute book because, after 115 hours, the Standing Committee is only halfway through the Bill.
At my regular constituency surgeries at Erith town hall and at the additional surgeries that I hold in Crayford and Thamesmead I regularly deal with social security matters on which my constituents seek advice and assistance. Claimants are often baffled and confused by the complexities of the present social security system with its panoply of forms, rules and regulations. We are fortunate in Bexleyheath, where my local DHSS office is situated, to have a first-class manager and staff. They do an excellent job and provide people with all the help they can, but it is an uphill task because of the complexity of the system. Even simple claims involve a fair amount of work. Some of it is unnecessary, but the pressure of work, coupled with the intricacies of the system, which can best be described as an administrative nightmare, mean that the staff in local offices, such as mine in Bexleyheath, cannot always devote to complex cases the time and effort which might be necessary.
The Standing Committee has debated at great length the basis of the Bill. We have gone in detail through clause after clause. From our deliberations all parties seem to believe that there is a desperate need for reform of the system. The electorate, too, believes in the need for reform. The Government have my total support on the Bill because it is an attempt to rationalise and modernise the system.
On Second Reading and in Committee we heard that there has been no organised reform of the system since Beveridge. But times have changed. We are living in 1986. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) is living in the past. We must look to the future, not backwards to a past system, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested. In 40 years, times have changed. The society in which we live has changed and so have the problems, but the provisions of the social welfare system have only been tampered with, either by tacking on additional benefits or by piecemeal reform.
The Bill, which examines the whole aspect of social security pensions and benefits, is long overdue. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his team of Ministers deserve credit from the House and the Committee for all their work on the Bill. The contributions in Committee have been constructive and the Government have listened to the arguments put forward by the Opposition. While the debates in Committee have been impressive, far too much time has been spent on each clause. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Opposition Members may say, "Rubbish," but they have been wasting time.
The aim of the Bill is simple: to ensure that help is given to those in real need. That aim can be achieved only if the social security system is easily understood and administered. The piecemeal development of the system has led to a range of complicated, intertwined benefits, even with different means tests for each benefit claimed. In addition, the staff who have to administer the system are faced with voluminous regulations and codes even for


relatively small claims. As a consequence many people are unaware of what benefits they can claim. Slight differences in income or in circumstances between similar families can lead to wide variations in benefit. Often claims are wrongly calculated and benefits are incorrectly paid. Extra work is generated to remedy that, assuming that the mistake is detected. Further, even if all the difficulties are discounted, help is not always given to those who need it most. From our constituency mailbags or from the media we all know of cases of terrible hardship and of people who have been missed out. That is not acceptable in Britain today.
The provisions of the Bill will remedy many of the deficiencies. Income support, which will replace supplementary benefit, will be provided on the basis of a set rate of benefit, together with premium payments for single parents, the disabled and the elderly. That will be backed up by a simpler system of housing benefit which will provide help with rent and rates to those in work and to those who receive income supplement. There will not be two systems as at present. That is progress and improvement.
The proposed social fund, which we have been discussing of late in Committee, will be a far more flexible means of providing help. People with special needs or problems will be able to get extra help from the fund, which will be better tailored to meet individual needs.
The other major reform which will go a long way towards meeting needs often unmet at present is the system of family credit which will replace family income supplement—a benefit claimed by only about half those entitled to it. In addition, family credit will provide help for low-income families more sensibly, with benefits calculated to avoid the poverty trap which means currently that if there is a slight increase in its income a family may be worse off because of subsequent loss of benefits. As we have heard in Committee, the present system contains a disincentive to work or a discouragement to work overtime because the subsequent loss of benefit may mean that a family is worse off.
This is a reforming measure. It is not about cutting benefits or reducing expenditure, as the Opposition would have us believe. It is constructive and progressive. It is about cutting out bureaucracy and waste. It has one guiding principle—to give the right help to the right people at the right time. [Interruption.] I regret that the Opposition are not willing to listen. We have listened to them in Committee for hours and hours, but they will not listen to the facts when they are presented to them.

Mr. John Mark Taylor: They never do.

Mr. Evennett: My hon. Friend is right; they never want to listen. Time after time in Committee my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues tried to put them on the right rails but they did not want to listen then and they do not want to listen now.
In Committee we spent much time discussing the measure in great detail. The time provided for each clause was more than adequate. We have made some progress but nowhere near enough to get the measure on the statute book. We have heard the same arguments repeated again and again.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: rose—

Mr. Evennett: I shall not give way. It is time for the hon. Member to listen.
The Opposition have a different philosophy. We have just heard the Opposition view from the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney. His view is clear—more money from the taxpayers, to be distributed to everyone irrespective of need or poverty. The right hon. Gentleman wants benefits to be distributed in the same old way as they have always been. The result, regrettably, would be more bureaucracy. The more bureaucracy there is, the more money taxpayers will have to provide. It is the ordinary taxpayer who has to pick up the bill. There is not a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow to be distributed to everyone. We have to be rational and give the benefits to those in real need.
What view have we heard from the alliance in Committee? We have heard a lot but it does not add up to a constructive reform package. When it come to voting, alliance Members went with the Labour party The philosophy of the Government, which I believe has the support of the vast majority of the people, is that taxpayers' money must be spent wisely, that bureaucracy must be reduced and that benefits must be given to those in real need.
The DHSS employs about 40,000 people to administer supplementary benefit alone. To provide the blanket cover that the Opposition want, without any sensible assessment of need, would require far more staff. The money that the Government spend is taken from the pockets of the people. It is the duty of any Government to govern well in the interests of all the people—the claimants, those who have to administer the system, and the taxpayers.
The country would like to see the reforms on the statute book and operating to improve the system. If we went outside this House and asked whether the 115 hours that have been spent on the Bill is sufficient, the majority of people would say that it was. Whether it has been used wisely is for the Opposition to decide when considering their performance. The reform of the social security system, long overdue as it is, has started its course towards an improvement for the future.
What we need now is less talk and more action.. We have had debate at great length. We must conclude the rest of the Bill in Committee, and the sooner the better.
I welcome this timetable motion, not only because it means that we can conclude, and go forward, but because we want the measure to reach the statute book soon.

Mr. Archie Kirkwood: I must say that the speech of the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) was pathetic. I do not say that often, and I am sure that it was not up to the hon. Gentleman's usual standard. I do not know who wrote his script—perhaps it was the Patronage Secretary. He was supposed to be addressing his mind to the need for a timetable motion for this Bill. He went on at great length and much of his speech was platitudes. We could have done with it in Committee. None of it gave a reason for curtailing discussion. He asserted, in a throwaway tine, that the Opposition had wasted time in Committee. That is not true, and he knows it.
If the hon. Gentleman takes a tape measure to the column inches of the Hansard reports of the Standing Committee, he will find that Ministers of the Crown have


been on their feet for almost as long as we have. That is a measure of the difficulty of the Bill. I do not criticise that. It is unreasonable to say that it was time wasting.

Mr. Michael Stern: I do not know in what form the hon. Gentleman's tape measure is calibrated, but mine—I did the exercise—showed that Government Members took approximately one third of the time in Committee. The balance has been taken up by speeches of the Opposition.

Mr. Kirkwood: If one third of 115 hours had been excised, it would have made more time and thereby made the Committee's work much speedier.
It was the Government's fault that the Bill consisted of merely a series of headings that needed to be fleshed out, and it was inevitable that Ministers would have to speak for some time. Nobody in the House should be misled into thinking that time was wasted to any extent at all.
My objection to the guillotine motion is not one of principle. I understand that Governments will require to resort to guillotines in some circumstances.
I am a veteran of two Finance Bills—[Interruption.] I am older than I look. Even during my two or three years here, I have served on Committees for which Governments would have been entirely justified in introducing guillotine motions. The tradition is that Governments do not use them in Finance Bill Committees, but we have had in the past six-hour debates, where Opposition Members—not including me—spoke at great length about totally irrelevant matters and spent long hours discussing sittings motions. That did not happen in this Committee.
My objection is that the Bill is not one Bill, as the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said earlier. It is at least three Bills. It is a pensions Bill. I went on record early on saying that the Government were foolish to try to cobble together a pensions Bill with the fundamental reforms that were required in the income support system, which is the second aspect of the Bill. The third part of the Bill is technical. Part V, which contains the common provisions and sections on adjudication, should be another Bill in its own right.
It is wrong for Departments to put measures up to Ministers that they know cannot be discussed in a sensible time, even by a decent Standing Committee that is doing its work properly. If the Government insisted on introducing 70 clauses and eight schedules, they should have started on the first day of this session. To come after the Christmas recess with 70 clauses and eight schedules smacks of a conspiracy, suggesting that they are doing it deliberately so that a guillotine motion after 115 hours sounds entirely reasonable.
We must put down a marker. I will support the Opposition on this timetable motion not because I am against timetable motions, but because I am against Departments introducing Bills which are impossible to get through without guillotine motions.
The difficulties in Committee have been exacerbated by the vagueness of the proposals. More Government time was needed to explain them. They have been exacerbated by the severe impact on the living standards of the claimants who will be affected, and by the sheer number of people who will be affected by the provisions of this Bill.
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney was also right to advert to the fact that any objective viewer of this measure must come to the conclusion that the Government have deliberately insinuated the reforms to avoid any public scrutiny at the polls. That is not good for democracy, and it is a charge which the Government have been unable sensibly to refute.
The Standing Committee proceedings have been constructive, notwithstanding the politically contentious nature of the matters which we have been discussing. They have been even-tempered. The Committee has been assiduous. I concede that I have been tabling amendments and that some of them have been misconceived, but it is a complicated subject, and it is better to take one's courage in one's hands and try to improve the Bill. If the Minister puts one right, so be it. I make no apologies for doing that.
The political disagreements in Committee have been contained within reasonable levels. On some issues, although the Government have not accepted our amendments, I am satisfied that we have put ideas to the Government that have made them reconsider areas in which their thinking was not fully developed. All the elements for a successful Standing Committee have been in place until now, but the Government have made a bad blunder in introducing this guillotine motion. If the Secretary of State had made approaches, either formal or informal, perhaps at an earlier stage, we might have been able to finish the Bill without any guillotine, give or take a couple of weeks. I would have responded as positively as I could. We were never offered that choice. Along came the chopper after 100 hours, and we were given no choice in that matter.
I am deeply worried about part V of the Bill, which contains many of the common provisions and adjudication sections of the procedures for consultation with the Social Security Advisory Committee, which are very important. They are technical matters and may not be so politically contentious. The adjudication system is highly refined; we have had debates about that in Committee. I do not wish to do anything which would shift the balance significantly. If we restrain discusssion of those matters, I shall be extremely worried. I think we should draw the attention of Members in another place to the fact that discusson in these areas may be restrained. They may be minded to turn their attention to those matters if we do not get a proper chance in Committee or on Report to air the issues.
I have three main objections. The guillotine is unnecessary, as the Government should have tried to get the Bill out of Committee by consent. They could have succeeded had they put their mind to it. The guillotine restrains discussion on important constitutional issues, including the common provisions and adjudication sections.
My main objection is that we are effectively discussing three Bills. If Governments introduce Bills which are effectively three Bills rolled into one, they will have to use the guillotine procedure, and the guillotine will become the norm rather than the exception. That is completely unacceptable in the context of parliamentary democracy, and that is why I shall vote against the motion.

Mr. Lewis Stevens: The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and I have been members of the Standing Committee since the beginning of February. I decided to serve on the


Committee partially because no one seems to have understood previous Social Security legislation. I thought that if I was present at the start of the Bill, I would have a much better chance of understanding what was happening. I congratulate my local DHSS offices in Nuneaton and Rugby on the way in which they have managed to interpret the complicated information in the legislation.
The Committee has worked well. There has been no ill intent from the Opposition and many of their probing amendments and arguments have been useful. That has been seen in the way in which Ministers have reacted to many of those arguments. They have said that they will go away and reconsider some of the arguments, and there have been one or two concessions.
No matter what Bill we were considering timetabling, I would support such a motion. We should change the attitude of the House, which allows Bills to drift on in Standing Committee in accordance with tradition. Recently, the House had the opportunity to introduce the discipline imposed by time restraints, but rejected it. It is good that that discipline will be imposed, even at this late stage, on our consideration of the latter part of the Bill.
In recent weeks, hon. Members have not been over-repetitive, although at times it is difficult to remember whether we have discussed points previously in Committee. We may repeat our arguments in our discussion of the latter part of the Bill, so the discipline of the timetable will do no harm.
The debates have become a little pedestrian at times, but I do not suggest that that is the reason for the timetable motion. There is a danger that, as we drift towards the end of the Bill, we could drag it out beyond the deadline set by the timetable motion.
In The Guardian today, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) was reported as saying that he did not want the guillotine to be introduced. He thought that it was unnecessary, as the Bill was likely to finish at about that time anyway. He may be right. The Committee stage might end by the end of April or the beginning of May. However, that is uncertain because of the number of clauses yet to he considered. The timetable proposed will create the right discipline to ensure that the Committee stage finishes in good time.
It would have helped to have a timetable motion from the beginning of such a complex and detailed Bill. If we had known how many hours we would sit, the Opposition would have been able to organise and consider the time available with some flexibility as to how the Bill should be discussed. That is one of my main arguments for timetabling Bills. Timetabling is not always a disadvantage to the Opposition; it allows them to plan their approach. In the end, we shall have discussed the Bill for 168 hours. That is a long time, and probably reasonably near to being an adequate period for argument, but I still believe that a timetabling restriction is necessary.
This is a controversial Bill. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said that the Committee proceedings should last as long as those on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. By my calculations, the latter lasted for 145 hours. This Bill will run for at least 160 hours. When we examine such a wide-ranging Bill, as the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire described it, we must realise that it has separate parts. It would not have made too much sense to go as far as he suggested and separate the parts into different Bills. There

are interrelationships between all the sections of the Bill, and they should be considered together. I welcome the fact that we have taken a complete view of social security with the intention of introducing a logical change.
We had many arguments and spent much time in Committee discussing what matters should be contained in primary legislation and regulations. One thing which I like about the Bill, although I accept that many hon. Members do not like this, is that we are setting primary legislation which will not require to be altered simply because we wish to alter some comparative detail in the regulations. One precedent is the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 which replaced a mass of legislation with a small amount of primary legislation. A more workable system has developed from that. I do not see why, despite the criticisms that we have heard, it would be a disadvantage to have a similar set-up in social security.
It is easy to become emotional about the nature of the Bill, because it affects the people about whom one becomes emotional. That is a natural response. But the Bill tries to set out matters in a more logical and simpler form, so that those who are affected are able to understand what is happening and can be dealt with quickly.
In our recent debates in Committee, we have discussed the speed of action of the social fund to ensure that people receive help immediately, not three weeks or six months after the tribunal hearing. This simplistic approach—the Bill is still complex—will enable that to be done much better than in the past. But there is still much to be done in the regulations. Ministers have sensibly agreed to reconsider matters and all hon. Members will look to Report to see the Government's proposals, which we hope will satisfy the reservations expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
That does not stop me welcoming the general impact of the Bill and its general intentions. The timetable limitation, which may be a nominal limitation if the hon. Member for Oldham, West is correct, will ensure progress on the Bill, so that the other place has the time to consider it, and we can bring it back and it can receive Royal Assent. It is important that, with so many changes—some of which are drastic—there is time for DHSS offices to become organised to operate the legislation in 1988. If the Bill did not go through, it would be a disastrous waste of time and effort.
This is the right approach. The guillotine is necessary. It will probably not have the effect of genuinely curtailing discussion, as some Opposition Members fear.

Mr. Bob Clay: It is ironic that if this debate were not taking place—very unusually for a Tuesday—the Committee could probably have made another eight hours' progress tonight. That is an extraordinary contradiction that no one from the Government side has so far offered to explain.
I have found it a pleasure to be on this Committee. I get very impatient with many of the habits and customs of the House and hold them in little esteem. I have found it frustrating to be a member of Standing Committees. When we have discussed important legislation that would affect millions of people, I have occasionally found it frustrating when members of my own party have spent a lot of time talking for the sake of talking, as if it were some kind of "macho" achievement to sit up all night and speak for two, four or six hours. I acknowledge that it can sometimes be


an effective parliamentary tactic, but it is frustrating at times. Yet no one could accuse any member of this Committee—certainly no Opposition Member nor anyone on the Government Benches or, with possibly one or two exceptions, the Ministers themselves—of making any such attempt. The Secretary of State has hardly opened his mouth even when he has been with us. The only time that anyone has seriously filibustered since the Committee began its deliberations was when Government failed to have briefs ready in time—and that was because of the progress that the Committee was making.
It has been a pleasure to belong to this Committee and to know that if one turned up there would be serious argument, even though one's hostility to and outrage at the Government's proposals was in no way diminished. One knew that one would have an opportunity to make a serious contribution to the detailed examination of the Bill. It has been an interesting and healthy break with tradition that there have been so few "stand part" debates; the sittings motions have not been debated.
If anything, Opposition Members have been more willing to put time into the Bill than have Government Members. It was not Opposition Members who asked to slacken off over Easter. We could have had one or two more sittings before and after the Easter recess; it was the Government who did not wish to have them. Particularly when we have been in the middle of discussing some important matter which it would have been difficult to continue to examine two days later, my hon. Friends would have been happy to continue the discussion, and sit a little later on Tuesday nights. It has been the Government—

Mr. Wigley: The hon. Gentleman will recall that at 1 o'clock in the morning last week it was the Government who wanted to adjourn, when many Members of the Committee, including myself, who opposed the motion, were quite prepared to go on.

Mr. Clay: I remember the occasion well, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of it.
There have been perhaps only two or three "stand part" debates, so anxious have Opposition Members been to examine details of amendments in a full and proper manner.
It has also been the case, perhaps somewhat uncharacteristically, that some Conservative Members—not those who have spoken so far this afternoon—have had a great deal to say, some of it of great importance. The hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) has, through amendments and other contributions, played a major part in the Committee's examination of the proposed legislation. Government members of Committees do not always play that kind of role. All the more reason, therefore, for the Government to accept that some of their own members require time to examine this Bill in a proper way.
The only explanation of the Government's anxiety to stifle discussion is that, the more detailed the examination of the Bill, the more the Government flounder. In a significant proportion of recent discussions we have seen Ministers moving the goalposts as the debate has gone along, so ill-prepared have the Government been for consideration of the Bill. I have never seen such a flurry of notes passing backwards and forwards between civil

servants and the Government Front Bench, as question after question has been raised not only by Opposition Members but by Government Back Benchers.
It is ironic that the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) referred earlier to the inadequacies of the present social security system and to the nightmare of regulations. Much of the discussion in Committee has consisted of probing questions and amendments from the Government's Back Benchers and from Opposition Members, only for them to be told, time after time, by Ministers that these things would be dealt with in regulations. A Government who have responded in that sort of way have no right to curtail discussion by means of the guillotine.
This Bill is in no way a normal one. Even by the most modest standards, it contains enough material for several Bills. There could very easily have been two Bills on the pensions aspect alone. A Bill that simply dealt with SERPS would have been seen as a major piece of legislation. One that brought in the notion of portable and private pensions would have been seen as a major Bill. Stating the case modestly, a Bill that dealt with, say, family credits, income support and housing benefit alone would have been seen as a massive piece of legislation. On top of that there is the social fund, which in itself is worthy of a Bill. In these circumstances, where one is dealing with the equivalent of as many as five Bills, it is outrageous that, when we have already, quite remarkably, moved more than half way through the substance of the Bill, the Government should guillotine further discussion.
I said earlier that I am somewhat cynical about parliamentary processes. This experience makes me even more cynical. There has been much that I would have liked to say but have not said because of the wish of many hon. Members on both the Government and Opposition Benches of the Committee to make progress.
The Government will win tonight. All the signs are that they will get their Bill through in substantially its present form. Nevertheless, in the end they will have to answer to the millions of people who are affected by the Bill. It is, after all, a Bill that will affect almost every person in the land—men and women, young and old, those in work and those unemployed, fathers and mothers, sons and daughters.
As the catastrophic provisions of the Bill start to bite, particularly in areas quite often represented by Opposition Members—those which currently have very high levels of single payments from the DHSSs, those areas which will be devastated by the completely unconsidered and wicked cash-limiting effect of the social fund—people will ask themselves how on earth Parliament could have passed such outrageous legislation in the first place. Even now, I find it difficult to explain to people how arguments and votes against the Bill are unavailing. People ask whether I did not explain to the Government. I have to reply that an explanation was given but that the Government did not want to listen.
Even the Government's own supporters have warned them that on a number of aspects things will go seriously wrong For example, there is not just all-party opposition to family credit, but the CBI, small businesses and the self-employed, nearly all of which normally support the Government, are opposed to this proposal. I shall always remember the hon. Member for Kensington begging his colleagues on the Committee, and saying that it would be in the best interests not only of the country but of the


Conservative party, to have the guts to support him and defeat the Government on that proposal. Unfortunately, no one had the guts to do so.
I believe that when people understand what has taken place they will hold more in contempt than they do at the moment an institution and habits that could allow legislation of this kind to go through with this kind of anachronistic stifling of debate.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): Leaving aside the issue of how family credit is paid, is the hon. Gentleman seriously putting forward the argument that the reform of the family incomes supplement system is not sensible and that the Government decision to devote more resources to low-income families is not an altogether sensible and highly welcome measure?

Mr. Clay: It is not the purpose of this debate simply to repeat arguments that have already been aired to some extent in the Committee, but I will just say this. One of the few good things about this debate is that we have got the Secretary of State's views on this. We knew them already, of course, but he had not spoken in the House on the matter and he has hardly ever spoken in the Committee. I rather resent his finally getting off his backside and intervening, because I would have welcomed the opportunity on many occasions to intervene in the Committee on the Secretary of State in particular, who came sneaking into my constituency to do a "World in Action" programme about people on supplementary benefit in Sunderland. He said that he was horrified by what he had seen and that this Bill would help them, when he knows perfectly well that it will not. He has never been available in the Committee to answer many of the points that I would have liked to make.
I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if I continued in this vein you would draw me back to my remarks on why this Bill should not be guillotined tonight.

Mr. Fowler: Will the right hon. Gentleman either withdraw or answer the question?

Mr. Clay: I do not withdraw one word. I am answering the Secretary of State's first intervention.
On the question of family credit, all I said was that the CBI was opposed to it. That point was made in Committee and was never denied. Every single small business organisation is opposed to it. The Secretary of State ought to read the record of the speech by the hon. Member for Kensington, who read out and quoted at great length all those organisations that had made representations against family credit and made the point that hardly any organisations other than one or two known down-the-line academic supporters of the Government supported that proposal. I do not retract what I said and I think that the evidence proves it to be correct.

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman still has not answered the question. What I put to him was quite specifically that there is a distinction between the mechanism whereby family credit is given and the family credit itself. Organisations such as the CBI are not in any way suggesting—it is entirely misleading to suggest that they are—that it is wrong to channel more support, which is what family credit is about, to low-income families. I ask the hon. Gentleman again whether he supports that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. I have allowed the exchanges, but we are debating a timetable motion, not the merits or demerits of the Bill.

Mr. Clay: I respect your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will only repeat that we would have welcomed hearing this from the Secretary of State during the Committee stage instead of tonight.
It seems to me that this Bill is in many ways a threat to democracy. Those in our society who are most desperate, those who at the moment genuinely—the Government have to understand this—do not know how they are doing to manage from day to day. Those 'who dread what next week may bring, those who are really struggling and sinking deeper, those who have been unemployed for a year, two years or three years—and it is becoming a higher and higher percentage of a growing number of unemployed—and many others will be badly affected by this Bill. It will increase their alienation from the basic fabric of our society.
The Bill is a damaging one for democracy and the way in which such a major Bill can be quite cynically guillotined by the Government despite the entirely responsible, possibly over-responsible, behaviour of the Opposition and many of their own supporters is a further threat to the institutions that hon. Members of this House hold dear.

Mr. Michael Stern: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to contribute to this debate, not least because I must apologise to hon. Members for the fact that I shall not be able to stay to its conclusion because of a prior engagement.
The debates in Committee have been for the most part remarkably good natured and I should like to continue to maintain that atmosphere by saying that in my view—I speak, like the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), as a veteran of the 1984 Finance Bill—there has not been an attempt on either side at a filibuster or anything close to it. On occasion debates have become somewhat repetitious because of the heat generated by the subject under debate. I remember one such, on the question of benefits for strikers' families, which in my view went on rather too long and became extremely repetitious. Nevertheless, I accept that there has been no organised filibuster. Indeed, the apparent lack of progress in the Committee has been occasioned rather more on the one hand by the numbers of matters to be considered and on the other by the numbers of amendments that have had to be disposed of by my right hon. and hon. Friends.
The fact that, at this stage in the Committee proceedings, after 115 hours, we are still on clause 33, having spent the last six sittings on clauses 32 and 33, proves either that a lot of amendments are going down and the arguments are becoming a little repetitious—which I believe to be the case—or that we need some form of procedural boot up the rear end to get us moving forward at the pace which we achieved at certain stages of proceedings on the Bill.
There have been many amendments and, as one would expect in a Bill of this nature, there have been many Divisions. But the speed of the Committee's work has been aided by what one might call the remarkable


unanimity of the Opposition, despite the fact that it contains representatives of three political parties, when it has come to voting. To date we have had in Committee 69 Divisions. It may surprise hon. Members to know that on 62 of those occasions the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the Liberal party, found himself able to support the official Opposition. This unanimity strikes me as a bit suspicious. It may well be that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire arrived at the same conclusion as the official Opposition by a totally different route, but some may unkindly believe that this is yet another case of the Liberal tail being wagged by the Labour dog.
I would contrast this with the attitude of the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), who has not only contributed a great deal to our debates from his deep knowledge, particularly of disability, but has been able to look at the amendments proposed and has voted with the official Opposition on 46 out of those 69 occasions. This strikes me as the mark of someone who is looking at each amendment in isolation, and I congratulate him on that.

Mr. Wigley: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that those who vote on the amendments are not looking at each one individually as we go along? If he is, I would draw to his attention the fact that most of the Opposition members of the Committee are present throughout the debate, whereas Conservative members of the Committee come pouring in from the corridor when the vote is called.

Mr. Stern: I was about to comment briefly on the arrangements in Committee and to conclude my previous remarks. In Committee the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) sits a little apart from the Members of the Labour party, whereas the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) usually sits among them. I was going to suggest to them that in view of their voting records their seating should be reversed.

Mr. Jim Craigen: Far be it for me to bark for the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) but could it be that he finds the Minister's answers less than convincing?

Mr. Stern: If that were the case, I, on behalf of the hon. Member for Caernarfon, would consider myself grossly insulted.
The Opposition cannot claim that debates have been held up by an ureasoning lack of flexibility on the part of the Government. From experience on other Standing Committees, I think that Ministers have shown considerable flexibility. They have been less flexible over amendments accepted, although I remind the House that the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire—No. 378—was accepted, somewhat to his surprise at the time, but with expressed gratitude.
More importantly, in this area of complex legislation, the Government have been extremely flexible in terms of clear undertakings to look again and wherever possible to come back on Report with amendments which reflect the will of the Committee, even though the wording which was being discussed was not entirely acceptable in legislative terms. A major extension of the pension provisions in the Bill to provide much greater flexibility

of pension schemes is an example which sticks in my mind. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary undertook to introduce that on Report, in response to a number of amendments which have found favour on both sides of the Committee.
I do not think that it can be argued that the timetable proposed is unreasonable. We have spent 115 hours debating 32 clauses and two schedules of the Bill. The timetable motion will propose a further 54 hours. That is a substantial amount of time in any context for further consideration of the Bill, especially when one considers that the House will be discussing a major area of foreign policy and coming to conclusions on it in about seven hours tomorrow. During those 54 hours, we still have to consider 38 clauses, many of them technical, and six further schedules. There are already six new clauses on the Order Paper.
However, I do not think that it should be beyond the wit of the Committee to give adequate consideration to the remainder of the Bill in the time alloted. Indeed, I can see advantages to the Committee being able to pace itself rather than find itself, as it has on clauses 32 and 33, with large numbers of amendments many of which overlap, with no incentive to sort amendments into areas of discussion.
I can see another advantage to the pacing provided by the guillotine motion on behalf of the unusually large audience which the Committee has addressed from time to time. One of my colleagues in the House, seeing me struggle with my habitual load of papers along the Committee Corridor before entering the Committee Room, pointed out that there were so many individuals and lobby groups following the proceedings of the Committee, especially in its early stages, that he had the impression that I was marching through a picket line. Certainly the Bill has provoked a very wide interest. To date, with one or two rare exceptions, we have been able to accommodate audience by sitting at reasonable times and keeping our discussions to a reasonable length. The timetable motion will assist us in continuing to satisfy that audience.
As I have said, there are still a number of major items to be discussed, especially clause 39 which will clarify the disqualification for unemployment benefit during a trade dispute. There is also clause 49, which appears to give extremely wide powers of disclosure to the Inland Revenue, far wider than have appeared in any provious Social Security Bill, and clause 55, which I am sure will be welcome to all pensioners who fear a future Labour Government. Clause 55 will make the Christmas bonus automatic rather than at the discretion of a Labour Secretary of State.
One point clinches the case for the need for timed and detailed progress on the Bill. It has been commented on frequently by the Opposition Front Bench that this Bill is merely a skeleton and that it needs to be clothed with the numerous regulations which my right hon. Friends will have to introduce in due course to bring the legislation into action. Those regulations are as important to the people who are affected by the Bill as many of the clauses is in the Bill itself. However, no progress can be made on them until the Bill is close to the statute book. I think that we owe it to the people who will be affected by the Bill to make progress as rapidly as possible so that they can see, and make plans for, the areas in which they will be affected. I should like to give my right hon. Friend and his Front Bench colleagues the maximum opportunity to get


those regulations into draft form and under discussion before the Bill comes into operation. On that basis, I am happy to support the timetable motion.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I wondered many times in Committee why Conservative Members had not been participating in the debates. After hearing some of the contributions tonight, I now understand a little more about that. I have had the pleasure, or displeasure, of serving on numerous Committees over the past 12 years. The Committee on the Social Security Bill has been one of the happier Committees. It has attended to its work in a more diligent and constructive manner than most of the Committees on which I can remember serving.
Looking back over the years, I served on the Industry Bill in 1975. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) served on that Committee, and the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), then the Member for Lincoln, was a Whip. I can remember the many long hours we spent in Committee listening to Conservative Members speaking at considerable length. They wanted to oppose the Bill and it was their prerogative to do so, but nothing like that has happened on this Bill. I also had the doubtful pleasure of serving on the British Telecommunications Bill. It was on one of my amendments that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) made his notorious 12-hour speech. Nothing like that has happened on this Bill.
By and large, the attention being given to the Bill by the Committee has been very constructive. The fact that a third of the time has been taken up by the Government Front Bench shows that they have been applying themselves to the points raised by the Opposition. The debate has been detailed, and sometimes there have been large numbers of amendments. However, the Committee has not objected at any stage to the way in which whole strings of amendments have been taken together for debating purposes in order to save time. For example, only this week as many as two dozen amendments were taken together on the Floor of the Committee. I remember such events being fiercely objected to on other Committees on which I have served. The Committee has been constructive. It is absolute nonsense for the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett), who is not in his place now, to suggest that there have been deliberate delaying tactics.
I do not object to timetable motions. I believe strongly that Bills should have timetable motions on Second Reading and that there should be a constructive approach to a Bill to avoid some of the time wasting that one has seen on other Bills, but not this one. I do not object to the guillotine for the Committee. Had we continued to make rapid progress in the way that we did until last week, once we heard that a guillotine was coming—that has an effect on hon. Members—we could have completed our consideration of the Bill by 1 May anyway.
However, I strongly object to the way in which the guillotine is being brought in half way through the passage of the Bill and to the fact that it is to apply to Report as well as to the Committee stage. I understand that that normally happens, but a disservice is being done to the House by the imposition of the guillotine on Report. As the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stem) said, when he was not pulling the legs of Opposition Members, on numerous occasions the Government have responded

to detailed points in Committee, not by accepting amendments but by saying that they will give further consideration to those amendments and come back on Report, if necessary. I have counted more than 20 instances of that, and I think that I have missed many more.
We are to have about 12 hours on Report before going on to Third Reading. We have up to midnight on the first day and until about 9 o'clock on the second day because we have to get on to Third Reading before 10 o'clock That gives us about 12 hours to consider 120 pages—about six minutes a page. The Government have given undertakings to come back in detail on Report on matters covered in many of those pages.
It is not just a matter of the Government coming back, but of hon. Members having the opportunity, on Report, to participate in the debate on such a vital Bill. The Committee does not represent all the parties in the House. My colleagues in the Scottish National party are not on the Committee. Social Democratic party Members and Northern Ireland Members are also not on the Committee. No doubt they have a viewpoint that they wish to express on Report. It is right that they should do so, but, with the guillotine affecting Report, it will be difficult for them to apply themselves in detail to the points in the Bill.
It is a significant, far-reaching and technical Bill. As hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, it could have been split into more than one Bill. For example, there could have been a separate pensions Bill. If so, the Government might have needed timetable motions on both Bills. Bringing them together and steamrollering them into one set of timetable motions does not give the House of Commons the opportunity that it deserves and needs to give detailed consideration to the Bill.
I give Ministers credit for the fact that they have paid close attention to the points that have been made on both sides in Committee. It is to their credit that they have taken as much time as they have. In response to one set of amendments, the wind-up speech lasted one and a quarter hours. That was because Ministers were taking and dealing with interventions. I do not deny that for a moment. That shows the nature of the Bill—its depth and complexity—and the need for the Committee to do its work thoroughly.
I hope very much that we shall go through the remaining stages of the Committee in a sensible manner. Conservative Members have made the point strongly that we have reached only clauses 32 and 33, and that we have spent four or five sittings discussing those clauses. However, I remind the House that clauses 32 and 33 deal with the social fund. They are the only two clauses to deal in detail with the social fund. That is one of the most controversial parts of the Bill.
Important matters are coming up in clauses 34 to 40, but many of the later clauses are technical and formal. They are clauses such as appear in all Bills concerning commencement, transition and extent. Those clauses will not need anything like the detailed consideration that the guts of clauses 32 and 33 require. The timetable for the Committee can do justice to that.
That is why I shall vote against the timetable motion. We are doing a gross disservice to the House and hon. Members who are not on the Committee by having such


a tight Report stage, because many matters on which undertakings have been given will not be considered in depth. Those matters are in danger of being forgotten.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: When we consider a timetable motion such as the one before us I think that the proper course is for hon. Members to dwell on procedure rather than open up a debate on matters that are within the Bill itself. I should like to say a few words based on my limited experience in the House since I had the good fortune to be elected in 1968. The timespan during which I have served is not a very long one on which to base conclusions about trends and the way in which the House of Commons is changing its procedure and practice; but in my opinion, during the span of time that I have been a Member there has been a marked decline in the status of Members on the Back Benches on both sides of the House, in the eyes not only of Ministers but of the staff who serve Ministers in their private offices.
In my time I have seen a marked decline in the importance of Third Reading. Third Reading, if it takes place at all now, tends to be an atrophied and perfunctory debate, which makes no significant difference to the attitude of Members, Ministers or Ministers' Departments. It is just a formality. If one comes into the House when a Report stage is taking place, even on a most controversial measure, one finds all too often that it is sparsely attended by hon. Members on either side of the House. Sometimes one is ashamed to see that when important Bills are being debated only three or four hon. Members on each side are paying attention—or waiting to speak—when the Public Gallery is packed.
One has to say that Governments are falling increasingly into the habit of attacking the Committee stage of Bills as well. Of course, I am sorry to say, there have been all too many examples in my time of hon. Members in Standing Committees wasting time deliberately. They have done so as a tactic to prevent the passage of legislation. Sometimes they have not added to the enlightenment of the Department, Ministers, or parliamentary colleagues.
We should never use Committee time in that way. If one wishes to attack a Bill, the right way to do it is to develop arguments that are so unanswerable that the Ministers are obliged to admit that the Bill is misconceived.
There was merit in the suggestion by the Select Committee on Procedure, that hon. Members should be asked to agree a timetable at the start of a Committee. That would be an improvement which would enable serious debates to take place in the planned and structured atmosphere of the Standing Committee. It would be a safeguard for hon. Members. However, that suggestion unfortunately was rejected by the Government with the support of the payroll vote.
Having started a Committee stage, as we have on this Bill, and having got as far as we have, it is wrong for the Government to intervene when the Committee is doing a responsible job, because it disrupts the work of the Committee and creates an unfavourable atmosphere. It also means that hon. Members serving on other Committees have it in mind that their work, too, might be foreshortened by Government intervention. It is wrong to

brandish the threat of the guillotine over Back-Bench Members who feel that they have a serious contribution to make, which they want to make in the formal atmosphere of the Standing Committee.
If I am right in thinking that Governments are increasingly regarding the guillotine as a weapon that they can use lightly, whenever it suits the procedure of the House, it implies that the gentleman in Whitehall knows best, and that the form in which the Bill is printed and brought to the House for Second Reading is the form in which it should leave the House, at the end, unamended.
I have served on Committees on Companies Bills when slabs of clauses have been brought in in Committee, but when there has been no possibility of their being seriously reviewed; and they have even been added to the Bill on Report. In such Committees, not just lines, but pages of amendments have it been tabled. Thus in Whitehall the impression is growing, and unfortunately is justified, that the House of Commons is merely there to rubber-stamp what the Departments have it in mind to do, and that hon. Members who wish to intervene will be swept aside by the authority of Ministers, backed by the power of the payroll vote. No Bill ought to be regarded as beyond improvement by Members of Parliament, nor should clauses be hustled through without adequate consideration.
Fortunately, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House made clear, we can rely on the other place to do much of our work for us, because conscientious study is given there to clauses which, in the House of Commons, have unfortunately had to go through without proper analysis.
Are we really carrying out our functions if we let slabs of legislation through without discussion? This is a constitutional issue, not just a matter that affects people who are concerned with social security and the implications of this Bill. In my opinion we are seeing the decline to vanishing point of the concept and practice of the separation of powers, under which the Executive has its responsibilities and functions, and under which the legislature must also exercise its own rights and perform its own duties, that ought not to be curtailed.
These things are enshrined in writing in the American constitution and are very well understood; but in the unwritten British constitution we do not hold these concepts in the front of our minds all the time. This failure is leading to a progressive decline in the status and influence of the House of Commons as well as its respect in the eyes of the public.
I do not want to develop this theme at enormous length, but I wonder what Simon de Montfort would have thought had he learned that a large and disciplined contingent of hon. Members in the majority party—more than 100—would in due course be retained in the pay of the Executive and be expected to act according to instructions on all occasions. I think he would have thought that it would weaken the House as an organ of the constitution—perhaps even more, in its own way, than the corruption of the House that led to the Reform Act of 1832.
Is this just constitutional theory, or does it matter, in practice, if the House of Commons is falling down on its functions? I think that it matters very much indeed, because the moderating influence of the House of Commons is slowly being rendered more and more ineffective. The result in recent years—particularly in relation to social security legislation—has been that the Government of the day introduce a system that is intended


to be permanent, the next Government throw it out, reject it lock, stock and barrel and introduce their own system, which in turn is thrown out by the succeeding Government. As a result, public administration is brought virtually to the point of collapse. That, unfortunately, is what we have in this country, where DHSS staffs are trying to carry on in spite of the very uncertain guidance that they receive from Parliament about the way in which their work should develop and evolve over time.
This Bill will be no exception to the other measures that have been before the House in my time. It will simply come under increasingly well-informed attack, even before it is implemented, and it will become clear to the permanent staffs that it will be only a matter of time before further major changes are introduced in their turn.
That is not a satisfactory way to proceed. My own impression on this Standing Committee is that quite serious issues that bear on the whole question of social security legislation have been discussed in an extremely serious and worthwhile way. Even when hon. Members may have felt that they were making no impression o Ministers, I have had the impression that they were making a mark with the Department and with outside opinion. I pay tribute to the Opposition, who have been constructive in their approach to the Bill. There has been no significant amount of time wasting in our discussions.
I also pay tribute to the Ministers who have dealt with the Bill. This Committee has been happy and constructive, and we have made such good progress as we have because Ministers have been serious, conciliatory and more than usually receptive. It therefore seems all the more a pity that our work should be affected by the House of Commons deciding to timetable our remaining studies of the Bill.
This is a major measure, and it is controversial. It has already aroused widespread, well-informed, public and institutional comment and concern. It will not add to the reputation of the Department or of this House if we take no note of the representations that hon. Members on both sides of the House have received and simply let the Bill go through without further serious examination of its implications.
In fact, we have done the major part of the work that needed to be done, but there are some serious debates still to come. It is all the more undesirable for the Government to appear to be hustling the Bill through, because it has such a wide impact and long-term implications for many millions of people. In fact, the entire population is affected in one way or another by the Bill. It is not right that the Government should appear to be impatient to push it on to the statute book without thorough analysis.
Part I could have been published as a separate Bill. Opposition Members have already said that the Bill is really several Bills rolled into one. I believe that it consists of only two. Part I, which deals with occupational pensions, could well have been a totally separate measure. The hours that we devoted to that were well spent, and should not be counted as contributing to the total of our consideration of the social security aspects contained in parts II and III.
The income-related benefits and the social fund gave rise to anxious debates. They are either innovatory, or totally reverse trends and opinions that have become established on both sides of the House. Inevitably, there has been much discussion on parts I, II and III.
No additional amendments have been tabled for some weeks. As a result, parts IV, V and VI and the schedules are left with barely any amendments of major importance. There are still one or two crucial debates to come, but they are unlikely to take up a great deal of time. The majority of the remaining amendments have been tabled by the Government. Perhaps the Government know that many more amendments will have to be tabled to the remaining parts, and perhaps this has not yet been disclosed; but I do not think that that is the case.
I believe that this guillotine motion has been forced on the Department by people outside it, who have not appreciated quite how well the Committee has been proceeding. Agreement to complete the Committee stage by the end of this month could have been obtained on a co-operative basis between the different sides represented in the Committee. The introduction of a guillotine is a blunder, and I shall be obliged to vote against the Government tonight.

Mr. Frank Haynes: I am privileged to follow the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir 13. Rhys Williams), given the tremendous work that the hon. Gentleman has done in the Committee. Indeed, from time to time he has stirred up the Government Front Bench when we have discussed some of his proposals. He is a fair and honest man. There is no doubt about that.
I do not agree with the Leader of the House. The right hon. Gentleman does not attend Committee meetings and does not know what is going on. He might have looked at the Bill, but he is not in Committee listening to the debates and seeing what takes place. I believe he is completely in the dark. The Government is moving in indecent haste to get this legislation on the statute book. Although I doubt that the Government will change their attitude, I hope that the Leader of the House will get the message that we should be given sufficient time to complete the Bill.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Haynes: I will not give way; there is not enough time.
I want to make clear that the Opposition have co-operated in the Committee from the very beginning of its deliberations. Let us consider what has happened in Committee. First, we did not have a sittings motion. I have been on Committees when, before starting consideration of a Bill, sittings motions have been debated all day and even longer. On this occasion, we got straight down to the business of pensions.
In addition, the Opposition often maintained the quorum on the Committee. We did not withdraw until the Conservative Members returned; we kept the consideration of the Bill moving. Therefore, some Conservative Members should reconsider what they have said. I felt sick when I heard the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) speak, because that is the first time he has spoken on the Bill. Although he has been on the Committee for all its considerations, he has left it until now to speak.

Mr. Wigley: He forgot to vote.

Mr. Haynes: Yes, he came running in when the vote was taken. The party numbers on the Committee were 17


to 11, but on one occasion there was a vote of 11 to 11, and the vote of the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford was missing. In any case, that matter was sorted out.
The two Whips on the Committee, who are running the show, have co-operated excellently and organised the Committee properly. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) said that on some days the Committee did not sit when it could have sat. That happened as a result of negotiation between the two Whips. They endeavoured to get everyone on the Committee working together.
I do not believe that sufficient time is available in which to debate the Bill properly. Although Conservative Members have talked some piffle this afternoon, sensible things have also been said by them. What worries me most is that mouth clamps are applied to them in Committee. I wish they would express themselves more often; far too many of them have had nothing at all to say in Committee.
The Leader of the House spoke about there being one Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North suggested that we should have had four Bills, and he could be correct. However, in the case of pensions, the hon. Member for Caernarfon is right in saying that one Bill is appropriate. The Committee spent three weeks on pensions. The questions involved were so technical that a lengthy consideration was necessary. Understanding what was involved was difficult for Ministers and other Members. Thus, considerable time was necessary.
However, the end result is that we are now speaking to the guillotine motion, hoping that the Government will withdraw it. Time is still needed to discuss cash limits. We know what will happen in this case, as we have had experience of it at the local authority level. We know that many people will miss out as a result of cash limits, so the matter merits much longer consideration. We are supposed to be here to help the people who need the cash. The massive cuts proposed in the Bill are shocking. The effect of the cuts will be that officers of the DHSS local office will tell people that they do not qualify, because of the legislation, for certain benefits, and many people will therefore miss out.
Over and over again in Committee, Ministers have said that they will answer a question on Report. In fact, this was said so often that on Report all Ministers will have time to do is answer those questions; there will be no time for a proper Report stage. This is ridiculous; I object to the fact that we have not had enough time to debate the Bill properly. Nevertheless, it has been a pleasure to serve on the Committee with the other Members involved.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: It has been my privilege to serve on all three Social Security Bills that have been dealt with since I entered the House. It is on those Committees that I have developed an expertise of which most people are unaware. I have become expert in being a quiet Back Bencher. I would not claim that at all times in Committee I am listening entirely silently, any more than I would claim that Ministers are always full of erudition or that the Opposition are always wrong. However, there is a lot of truth in those three statements, and I am glad to be able to put them on record.
The objective of the guillotine is to obtain the Government's business. This Bill is one of the most

important reforms that we are likely to see in this or any other Parliament, and it is absolutely essential to get every single part of it through. They are all parts of the one whole. The pensions legislation is probably the most far-reaching part. I am always distressed to see in our advice bureaux an old lady who has only her state pension and has to rely on supplementary benefits because she or her family were unable or unwilling in days gone by to obtain a private pension. The introduction of personal pensions in this Bill and the incentive to employers will reduce the numbers of such cases in future.
It is my future that the Committee on the Bill has been debating, and I look forward to far greater prosperity for all of us in our old age. The modification of SERPS that we saw in part I of the Bill will reduce those burdens that might I suspect be repudiated in ages to come. The same situation applies in relation to income support and the family credit system. Most of the debates in detail in Committee have not in any way defended the system we have at present; in fact, Members on both sides have been extremely critical of the present system. The Committee went into detail on the question of income support for the disabled. We rejected out of hand the system we have at present and wanted to know simply whether the disabled got as much under the new system as under the old, and whether the needs of the most severely disabled in our society would be protected. That question ends up being a matter of how much will be allowed in future upratings and also of the regulations that have to be laid down. That cannot be done until much more progress has been made on the legislation.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) commented on how this proposal would affect his constituency, as he is worried about his constituents. He seems to be proof that our excellent public school and Oxbridge system occasionally falls down on its job. He is right about the amount of lobbying taking place. Many people outside have taken advantage of the time we have spent on the matter in Committee. He might not be aware that those of us from Derbyshire seats have been lobbied by people organised by the Derbyshire county council, which tried to show that large numbers of our constituents would be exceedingly adversely affected by, specific elements of the Bill. It brought down a shoal of people to talk to us, calling us out of Committee so that this could happen. One or two of those people looked a little bizarre. Although the way people dress is entirely their own business, I find it hard to argue for more money to go to unemployed 18 or 19-year-olds who do not look as though they will make the best presentation of themselves to potential employers.That is my personal prejudice, and I am happy to parade it.
When I saw those people who had been brought all the way from Derbyshire, I asked whether any came from my constituency in Derbyshire, South. The answer was not one. I challenged Derbyshire county council to produce half a dozen constituents of Derbyshire, South who would be adversely affected by the Bill, to bring them to my advice bureau and to share their worries with me. The council has told me that, so far, it has managed to find only one person. It is willing to set up a proper meeting—not here, but in Derby. I believe that Central Television is willing to film the meeting. The council and other lobbyists who have been making out a strong case have not yet read the details of the Bill or listened to the discussions


in Committee. They have not taken seriously the remarks of Ministers and are not willing to listen to what is said. Many of our measures are major improvements.
I hope that, after 18 years as a Member, I, too, will speak with the erudition and experience that my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) demonstrates every time he speaks in Committee. I am not clear from his argument why he should be in favour of the representations of the Select Committee on Procedure, which involve guillotining and timetabling the entire debate. If the House had accepted that measure, the power of Back Benchers would have been diminished and the Government's managers would have been handed substantial powers, which they do not always have at the moment. My hon. Friend favours that measure and is at the same time against applying a guillotine to part of the Bill. His argument is not consistent.
No one likes a guillotine. I shall not even pretend that I like it or think it is a good measure. I should prefer the Bill to be passed without it. I think that we all had high hopes that that would happen. We have made tolerably good progress. We have been spared hyperbole, except once or twice from the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). I must admit that I missed his hyperbole. I do not feel right in a social security debate without hearing the hon. Gentleman go over the top. As a substitute, we have had the old-fashioned wisdom of the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) who criticises Conservative Members for not speaking, but then will not accept our interventions. The hon. Gentleman tends to substitute decibels for originality, and his speeches are all the better for that.

Mr. Haynes: The cheek of the hon. Lady.

Mrs. Currie: I always take it as a great compliment to my orations when speaking to students if I can get the Left-wing students to walk out in a huff. I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman has returned to the Chamber.
A great deal of the credit for the way in which the Committee has been conducted is due to the hon. Members for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) and for Barking (Ms. Richardson). They have done an immense amount of work and carried a full burden. I congratulate the Labour party on elevating them to such important positions. I hope that it will continue to elevate its lady Members to the number two positions. Perhaps at some time the Labour party will make more progress and elevate them a little higher.
Not enough progress has been made. We have had 30 sittings, and I think I have attended most. We have heard 114½ hours of debate. I think I have attended more than 100—if not, the Whips will tell me—and it certainly feels like it. Yet we are still only on clause 33 out of 70 clauses and have considered two schedules out of eight. We are less than half way through the consideration. At that rate of progress, we could sit for 249 hours considering clauses alone. My calculation matches that of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. At that rate of progress, we shall be sitting beyond the Whitsun holiday.
Even the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, to which the guillotine was not applied, was dealt with in just over 140 hours. The Finance Bill 1984 edged over 160 hours of debate. The Government's proposals will take us to 168 hours of debate in Committee by 1 May. That will still be a marathon. It should exclude all my colleagues from

further duties on Bills for the rest of the Session, except those of us who face another 57-clause Bill coming from the other place in the next few weeks. I, at least, will have done my bit by then.
It has not been a matter of filibustering. On the whole, hon. Members have directed their attention to the amendments. The debate has been highly amicable and technical. So many amendments have been tabled that I think the Opposition are overdoing it. Sixty amendments to clause 32 were tabled, and more than 20 were taken in one batch. This morning, 61 amendments to clause 33 were tabled, and 25 were taken in one go. Last Thursday, we dealt with 10 amendments to the same clause 33 and another four on Thursday afternoon.
Consideration is becoming slower. I do not know whether the Opposition are growing tired, but I suspect that we are becoming less able to distinguish between what is relevant and what is irrelevant. At that pace, it will be not Whitsun but the middle of next year before we complete consideration.
It has not been a matter of the Government rushing the legislation through. Second Reading took place on 28 January and the Bill immediately went into Committee. Second Reading did not take place until that date because the Government went through the business of the Green Paper and the White Paper, thousands of pieces of evidence, public meetings and open discussions. Never before has a Bill been discussed so thoroughly before reaching the House. That reflects great credit on all concerned.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) is right: a great many matters worth discussing have still to be debated. The timetable motion is generous in allowing for discussion on widows, maternity and death grants, strikers' benefits, the right of appeal, overpayments, offences and prosecutions—down to clause 59, which deals with local authority school meals services, a matter that arouses much interest in Derbyshire which has a local school meals scheme which will be wiped out by the provisions of that clause. Several clauses extend to Northern Ireland. We want to ensure that the legislation does its bit to retain Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom.
This reform is essential and long overdue. It has been carefully thought out and will function far better in practice than the muddle and chaos that at the moment passes for a social security system. It will benefit all our people for generations to come. I am happy to support my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I hope that the House will accept the motion.

Mr. Frank Field: If the judgment of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) were correct, many of us would vote more happily.
There are many advantages in catching your eye late in the debate, Mr. Speaker. One has the advantage of taking into account the views of other hon. Members. In social security debates, it is an added advantage because one usually has the advantage of listening to the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams). He not only brings special knowledge that no other hon. Member has but speaks as a great parliamentarian. It is perhaps a sign of what has happened to the Government Front Bench that the views of the hon. Member for Kensington are not heard with the discernment one would expect from a normal


Tory Government. I do not say that to disturb the waters. The hon. Gentleman made an interesting contribution. He is almost unique in the way he uses debates on the Floor of the House to introduce to Ministers grievances that are well worth taking up. The last time he spoke, he addressed us about his exclusion from Standing Committees, which assured him a place on the Standing Committee on the Social Security Bill.
Today, the hon. Member for Kensington highlighted a matter of which I was not aware because of my limited time as a Member—the changed attitude to Bills in Ministers' private offices and in the Civil Service generally. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's words will be read carefully and acted upon by the Government Front Bench. I would like to pay a compliment to the hon. Member for Kensington and to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley) who is present. They have played a proper and legitimate role for Back Benchers, especially Government Back Benchers. When they were unhappy with Government measures they spoke to that effect and were prepared to vote, or sometimes withhold their vote, so that their views could be registered. That is an important lesson for us on the Labour Benches to remember since one day, who knows, we may be supporting a Labour Government.
We do not know what the vulgarities of the electoral system hold in store for us. When we have been elected, our duty is to have as good an effect as we can on those Bills to which we are party. The hon. Member for Halifax, and especially the hon. Member for Kensington, have followed that parliamentary tradition to good effect during the passage of the Bill.
I feel that I want to call an end to the old cant to which I have listened this evening. When the Leader of the House introduces a guillotine motion, or any other motion, one is usually treated to an urbane and witty speech. His short speech tonight was certainly urbane though he kept the joke to himself. He must have been thinking about the joke on Opposition Members who will debate so strenuously the need to resist the timetable motion when the Government have no intention, for the remainder of the Bill, of paying much attention, if any, to the points which they, and sometimes the Government's supporters, put forward.
One or two of my hon. Friends have discussed the flexibility of the Government's mind. I find it difficult to recall the Government making any substantial changes due to the Opposition's arguments. They have run away from the scene of the battle only when one or two of their own Back Benchers have been prepared to join the Opposition to force a vote and defeat the Government in Committee.
Part of me says, "Why not let the Government have the timetable motion today as they will pay no attention to the arguments. The sooner we are put out of our misery the better." However, the other half of me feels that that is a somewhat cowardly reaction. We are not here for our convenience or to be put out of our misery but to represent the views of our constituents.
The remainder of the debate will allow us the opportunity to take the debate from the House and the Committee to the voters. One of the messages which we want to present—it has been put over loud and strong—is that this is not a single Bill but a series of Bills. The Government like to accuse Opposition Members of going

over the top. Perhaps they would like to level that accusation at me, because I think that there are six Bills rather than one. If one considers that we have been debating for only 115 hours, that does not seem a poor record.
The major Bills are concerned with privatising future pension provision. The proposal to try to encourage people to contract out of the state earnings-related pension scheme is all about privatisation. The supplementary benefit scheme is to be abolished and, in its place, there will be a scheme of income support. That may or may not be better. In Committee, we did not come to that conclusion. We wished to debate the restructuring of the scheme and whether it would match the real needs of our constituents. That debate was not brought to a successful conclusion.
The social fund will be established. We have been told by the Government what a unique and innovative proposal it is, yet the amount of debate spent on it has been limited. It is a novel form of social security provision. There are some constituents whose needs cannot be met under the existing scheme of provision, but the Government are attempting to introduce a scheme which will cash limit that provision. If that is not novel, I do not know what is. The social fund represents such a change in the safety net of welfare provision on Britain that it alone would have been worthy of a Bill.
There are other changes. Family credit will replace family income supplement. Some benefits will be abolished and there will be a major restructuring of the housing benefit scheme. Each of these changes could have been in a separate Bill and should have been debated fully in Committee and in the House.
At the beginning of this supposedly great initiative the Secretary of State said that it was the new Beveridge scheme. This new Beveridge scheme is trying to get off at the end of the runway, and, difficult as the flight path is, the amount of time that we have to get it airborne has been severely limited.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) touched upon other aspects of the Bill when he opened the debate. It is worrying that we have a timetable motion. We have not encountered the abolition of appeals for 50 years. Although, thank goodness, the appeals are not important to hon. Members, they are crucial to many of our constituents. The tribunals are the law courts for the poor people of Britain. Most of their disputes are settled in the supplementary benefit appeal tribunals, not before the traditional courts of law. Access to such redress is to be denied.
Much of the Bill is to be put into the form of regulations. That would have been my other reason for not opposing the timetable motion. Most of the Bill will be in regulations, so its structure would not take much time to debate. I must confess that we wanted to debate the areas of the Bill that are to be effected by regulations so that we could understand the Government's thinking.
In Committee, I have listed the phrases that the Government have used whenever we asked how the scheme would work. We were told that the Government had not made up their mind yet, that they were open to argument, or that they were coming fresh to the debate. We were told that they wanted to listen and that they had an open, but not always an empty, mind on the subject. These are all euphemisms for saying that the Government have no idea how the Bill will shape up in Committee.
We will oppose the timetable motion tonight because, despite the changes, some beneficial, the Bill will result in major benefit cuts for many of our constituents. In Birkenhead or the neighbouring constituencies of Wallasey, of Wirral, South or Wirral, West, about 6,000 claimants will lose out because of the Bill. That is the message on which we want to probe the Government and which we want to take to the country. We need time to do that.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call the next hon. Member to speak it may be convenient for the House to know that the Front Benches will seek to rise at 10 minutes past seven. Four hon. Members have been sitting throughout this debate and I hope that, if they bear that fact in mind, all will be called.

Mr. John Mark Taylor: One of the better features of the debate is that most of those who have been called have had something approving to say about other hon. Members' speeches.
The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) spoke kindly and truthfully about the good relations that existed between the Whips on the Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) paid tribute to the diligence of both Front Benches and the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) rightly reminded us of our constituents. Perhaps that is my point of departure. The DHSS is a service which it is all too easy to criticise, but it operates essentially in areas of stress and anxiety. It is as well to stop from time to time and pay tribute to it.
The DHSS in my constituency is ably led by the manageress, Miss James. I get extremely helpful responses from her when pursuing constituency cases. It is always right to consider improvements of systems that have been with us for some time if they are found wanting.
When considering the social security system, we are well advised, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) suggested, to disengage emotion and sentiment such as we invariably feel when dealing with the plight of people in trouble when considering the rules that govern the system. I agree that Opposition members of the Committee have addressed the business reasonably squarely. Rather a lot of amendments were tabled, spoken to, replied to and withdrawn, but most, if not all, were moved in good faith.
We can never reconcile the irreconcilable. The need for legislatures to despatch their business is seldom, if ever, compatible with the desire to give all parties a full and fair hearing on all issues. There has to be time limit. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton said, a time frame often obliges Opposition Members to work out a programme among themselves to decide who will address which amendment. The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) wisely observed that the prospect of a guillotine often had an effect on the pace of business. Without the advantage of membership of this place, Professor Parkinson advanced the theory of the time of the departure of the last bus. He postulated that, once that time is known, meetings work through the agenda with almost magical speed to enable its members to catch the last bus.
Today's debate has been typical of the good nature of the Committee, but a conclusion is inevitable. By the custom of the House, the conclusion is perfectly fairly requested, and I shall support it.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I have a good deal of sympathy for the honourable half of my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) which asked what is the point of prolonging the Committee's deliberations if the Government do not listen to even the most constructive and realistic criticisms offered by their political opponents. Those criticisms have been offered gracefully.
I deeply regret the guillotine motion. I have no objection whatever to the orderly management of the parliamentary programme, but the Government appear to be proceeding in a disorderly manner. Yesterday, the Home Secretary offered the opponents of the Shops Bill the concession of a guillotine-free passage. That Bill foundered, but this one, which is far more important to my constituents and hundreds of thousands of Scots, is to be subjected to a guillotine motion.
There are many important clauses ahead of us. Clause 35 concerns the abolition of maternity grants. Clause 37 concerns the abolition of death grants. Clause 38 concerns a reduced rate of unemployment, sickness and maternity benefits which people have paid for through national insurance contributions. Clause 41 has no fewer than 20 subsections stating how the benefit system will be administered. That will affect many people. Clause 42 concerns adjudication. It appears that the Government are consolidating the worst elements of existing schemes to make a more restrictive appeals procedure. Clause 50 has been wholeheartedly condemned by the Law Society of Scotland, which has written:
In our view the effect of the Clause will be to permit the Secretary of State, where he has made badly drafted Regulations to make more badly drafted Regulations without consulting the advisory body".
What about the rating system? Scottish ratepayers have had no extensive debate on that.
It is no exaggeration to say that the Bill is extremely important for hundreds of thousands of Scots. In November 1979, there were 157,872 supplementary benefit claimants in Strathclyde. That figure had increased to 305,803 by July 1985—an increase of 94 per cent. in six years largely because of the Government's indifference to the Scottish economy. In July 1985, 531,000 people in Scotland claimed supplementary benefit. I have given only the figures for claimants. If we include their dependants—wives, husbands and children—495,000 people in Strathclyde depended on supplementary benefit in July 1985. That is a full 20 per cent. of the population. The figure for Scotland was 867,574, or 16 per cent. of the population.
If we include those who should have claimed supplementary benefit but who, because of the poor quality of assistance offered by some DHSS offices—I am glad to say that that it is not true for offices in my constituency—about 26 per cent. of the population of Strathclyde region were living on or below supplementary benefit level. The Government are now saying that they will give the concession of a guillotine-free passage for the Shops Bill, but that they want to guillotine this much more important Bill.
In July 1985, 39·5 per cent. of the population of the city of Glasgow was living on or below supplementary benefit level. Those figures reveal the level of deprivation in Scotland, yet the Government are saying, "Let us have done with this Bill."

Mr. Craigen: Has my hon. Friend been able to get from Ministers information about how the social fund will be allocated to DHSS offices? Last summer, I tried to get an answer through correspondence but received no satisfactory replies. Is there any closer correlation to hardship?

Dr. Godman: The answer to that is, none whatever. I asked the same question in the Committee and it was a fruitless exercise. The other day I asked how many social fund officers are to be employed, but again I drew a blank. The issue about rates is important in Scotland, especially in the light of the Government's publication "Paying for Local Government". Even the Government concede that, under the Scottish system of revaluation, a ratepayer may be faced with a rates bill increase of 50 or even 100 per cent. in a single year. The proposals in the social security reforms that require everyone, even those in receipt of a supplementary pension, to pay 20 per cent. of his rates bill is especially cruel to Scottish pensioners in the light of this revaluation exercise. That exercise was carried out in Scotland but this sleekit Government did not carry it out in England. This is an important Bill and will have a significant effect upon the lives of many people. It deserves and will continue to deserve close scrutiny.

Mr. Roy Galley: It is gratifying to see that this debate is as constructive and as good-natured as the debates Committee. Both Front Benches held the interest and respect of the whole Committee. I enjoyed the suave interventions of the city gent, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) but the greatest joy is always to be found in the contributions by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes). They contain a kernel of seriousness and it seems that there is an elongated Tony Hancock trying to get out.
Most of the essential points in the White Paper were debated at length in the Committee. The principles of the significant number of details have already received considerable attention. There was no filibustering but in our proceedings there is growing repetition because much of the ground has been covered in principle in the past. The social fund debates are becoming a little long-winded. We have completed 114 hours and the allocation of another 54 hours, given the amount of ground we have to cover, seems quite generous.
I take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) who suggested we were being hustled over the remaining consideration of the Bill. Over the next few weeks we will eat and sleep the Social Security Bill. Important though the issues are, by the end of this month or the beginning of next month it will be pleasant to return, as far as one can in this place, to what approximates to normal life. Endless verbiage does the House no credit. The hon. Member for Ashfield spoke about mouth clamps; some voluntary mouth clamping in the Chamber on the lines of the wheel clamping regulations would be most welcome.
The Bill envisages a social security system that will be simpler and more coherent. It eliminates a number of discrepancies that have in certain circumstances the potential for abuse. It is aimed at presenting a system which is fairer, as far as one can be fairer, to the recipients of social security. It is not primarily a matter of cuts because there will not be significant reductions in overall expenditure. This measure seeks to improve the social security system and it is important that it should reach the statute book in good time for implementation in April 1988. It has yet to be considered in detail in another place and enormous administrative arrangements will have to be made to bring it into operation by April 1988. That is why I support the timetable motion.
I have one or two worries that I should like to mention to my right hon. Friend and I hope that he will be able to deal with them at Report stage. I hope that on that occasion every hon. Member will have a full opportunity to give his view about family credit and its payment through the pay packet. We had some anxious and at times agonising debates on that subject, but if at the end of the day the take-up of help for families with low incomes is improved, the reforms will be worth having. I hope that, on Report, we will receive firm assurances about the minimising of the administrative burden upon industry, especially small businesses, and also some hint that my right hon. Friend will monitor carefully the take-up of that benefit and ensure that measures are taken to improve its significance. The present take-up is 50 per cent. which is appalling; it is by take-up that the success of this measure will be determined.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will come forward with some detailed proposals about the social fund appeal. I welcomed the considerable, flexible and helpful response by my hon. Friend the Minister of State to the amendment on that matter that I moved last week in Committee. I hope that the timetable will provide adequate time between the end of the Committee's proceedings and Report stage for full and considered amendments on that matter to come back to the House. I also hope that my right hon. Friend will give us an amendment upon the face of the Bill about community care and the severely disabled, matters that we debated at length in Committee. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has given us some cause for hope and he understands and will take on board the problems of the severely disabled, who may be disadvantaged if the social fund does not operate in a flexible manner. I hope he will put forward some amendments at Report stage.

Mr. Bill Michie: I know that we are likely to lose the vote and that there will be a guillotine. It has already started, because I have been asked to speak for four minutes, or five minutes at the most. I have just had confirmation of that from the Front Bench. Any advance on five minutes? The hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley) says we need time to make sure we get the Bill through the House and through the other place and on the statute book by April 1988. This is 1986 so that does not seem too much of a rush. Some Bills have to be rushed because of deadlines. The Local Government Bill has to be through before April to facilitate local authorities in the following year, but in this case there is too much undue haste.
It has been said that the Bill is wide-ranging and has tremendous scope, not just for pensions or for women, the unemployed, the poorly paid, the disabled, widows, the poor and the needy. The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) said we spend a lot of time discussing strikers' families. I was a bit surprised at that, bearing in mind the impact the Bill is likely to have on families whose husbands or wives are on strike and not receiving any sort of benefit in terms of strike pay. Surely that is worth at least some time for debate in a proper and sincere manner.
I agree with the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) who said that the Bill affects not just one or two people but virtually the entire population in one way or another. It is essential that we are at least given an opportunity to speak on each of the remaining clauses. The Bill not only changes the concept of the social security system that we have always understood and appreciated, but will take away from people rights that they accept as such. People should not be ashamed of making claims of one form or another. If the Bill goes through in its present form it will create more poverty and turn many people into debtors who would not be debtors under the present system. It will divide families.
The Government have introduced many Bills with which I disagreed, but this one is perhaps the most dangerous; it is one of the cruellest Bills that I have seen. The effect of another measure has been to destroy the county councils. The control and democracy of local government was destroyed by the Rates Act. This Bill will destroy the lives of many people, through no fault of their own. It will take away the dignity of people, as well as their rights.
In Committee I asked the Minister how many groups and organisations support the Bill. Many of them, including the churches and the pensioner organisations and those for the disabled, to which we should pay tribute for their briefings to hon. Members and for the work that they have put into providing them, do not support it. If they are prepared to spend that amount of time helping these people, this House ought to be prepared to provide enough time for the Bill to be debated properly.

Mr. Michael Meacher: Although I am not a connoisseur of guillotine motions, having spoken on only two of them during the last 16 years, including this one, this must surely be among the most absurd guillotine motions ever perpetrated on the House of Commons. The Bill has 70 clauses, of which the last 30, under the headings
Administration; Subordinate legislation; Miscellaneous, General and Supplementary.
are relatively trivial. To suggest that these clauses will take as long to consider as the first 35, as the Leader of the House stated in order to reach his contrived total of 250 hours in Committee, is sheer fantasy. Of the 41 substantive clauses, by this morning the Committee had reached nearly the end of clause 33. It is ridiculous to impose a guillotine to ensure the passage of the last remaining significant eight clauses. According to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), the argument of the Leader of the House was thin. I prefer to say that it was invisible.
To put it another way, there are five central themes in this Bill which are bitterly controversial. The first is the emasculation of the state earnings-related pension scheme

and the deliberate halving of pension levels over the next few decades. The second is the new income support arrangements, especially the enforcement of the payment of 20 per cent. of their rates bill by even the poorest families in the country. The third is the removal from the mother of the right to family income supplement and the switch of entitlement to this money, in the form of the new family credit, to the man.
The fourth lies in the huge, swingeing cuts of £450 million in housing benefit, on top of the cuts of £200 million last year, that are now being imposed by the Bill on pensioners and the low paid, who are mainly unemployed families, including the loss of mortgage interest payments if they were struggling to buy a house at the time the man became unemployed. The fifth is the social fund which, as a new and unprecedented device that substitutes repayable loans for grants, even for those on supplementary benefit, and that permits no independent appeal against outright refusals of aid, is anathema.
These are the five key issues in the Bill. The Committee has all but finished the fifth. There could surely be no clearer indication than that of how ludicrous it is to move a timetable motion at this point. The guillotine is being imposed at the very point in the Bill when the regulatory framework is coming under special scrutiny. It is ironic that the guillotine is being used to curtail debate on areas of such dubious constitutionality.
Furthermore, it is patently inconsistent that the Government should now be racing to put a cap on discussion of the Bill when the Committee stage has revealed all too embarrassingly on how many points the Government have still not made up their mind and have side-stepped taking a decision by shifting whole areas of policy into secondary regulations. Ministers know as well as anybody else that the Bill is littered with the phrase
as prescribed by the Secretary of State in regulations".
In such circumstances, the Secretary of State did little to enlighten us, because on most occasions he gratified us by his absence or, when he was occasionally present, by his silence.
On such crucial issues as an internal review system for social fund decisions, the Minister of State was manifestly extemporising on key issues that clearly had not even been raised in the Department, let alone thought through. Most significant of all, the Government are seeking to impose a guillotine before they have tabled the new technical clauses that they clearly intend to present. They have not even revealed the contents of at least two major innovations that are planned: the statutory maternity pay scheme and the major alterations to the industrial injuries scheme. In the light of all that, I repeat: is it not absurd that the Government are trying to enforce an end to the debate when they have not themselves reached conclusions on key issues in the Bill?
Perhaps the most telling argument against the guillotine is that even Ministers and Government Back-Benchers—I am grateful, with one exception, for the fair-minded and generous comments that Government Back Benchers have made—have not pretended that the Opposition's tactics have in any way justified this restriction on debate. I pay a particular tribute to the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) for his honest and instructive recognition of this fact and for his much admired contributions to the debate. May I take this opportunity also to say how grateful I am to all of my hon. Friends, in particular to my excellent three Front Bench


colleagues, for what I believe was acknowledged as the universally eloquent, effective and self-disciplined manner in which they argued the Opposition's case throughout the Bill.
In that context, it is all the more remarkable—I return to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney said in opening the debate—that two months ago the Leader of the House said, and his words need to be quoted again:
we should proceed by informal agreement as far as we can. We should not rush to impose guillotines on Bills on which it is ultimately possible to reach agreement.
I do not know whether the Leader of the House is aware of the fact that absolutely no attempt was made to reach agreement on the Bill. There were discussions right at the start, but there have been no formal discussions with the Opposition. According to the Leader of the House, this guillotine is not justified. He also said:
The Police and Criminal Evidence Bill was controversial, but completed its passage without the need for a timetable motion, despite more than 145 hours in Committee."—[Official Report, 17 February 1986; Vol. 92, c. 45.]
The Police and Criminal Evidence Bill took 145 hours in Committee and was not guillotined. If allowed to run, the Social Security Bill might have taken fewer than 145 hours, yet it is being guillotined.
The real reason for the Government's timetabling of this Bill is not that it is taking too long in Committee, because patently it is not, but because it is highly embarrassing for the Government for the Committee proceedings to be drawn out any longer than is strictly necessary. It is not difficult, in my view, to see why.
This Bill will bring about cuts in benefit of around £1 billion. That is on top, on an independent estimate, of the cumulative £11 billion of social security benefit cuts since 1979. It will cause losses to nearly 4 million households, 2·25 million of whom are pensioners, and nearly 500,000 of whom will suffer losses of more than £5 a week. That is a painful loss to people who are living on the margins of poverty. It will cause the biggest losses to pensioners, the unemployed and the very severely handicapped. Indeed, 2,500 of the latter, one of the most vulnerable groups of all, will lose a staggering £60 a week or more. It is scarcely surprising, therefore, that the Government are so anxious to terminate discussion of the Bill.
This measure was billed as the biggest review of the welfare state since Beveridge. In reality, the Secretary of State has managed to generate a consensus of hostility which I would have thought must be unprecedented in modern times. The CBI as well as the Child Poverty Action Group, the Law Society as well as the women's institutes, the churches as well as the pension and insurance industries, have all opposed it. To have created such unanimity of opposition is a singular achievement by the Secretary of State, yet at every stage, in the face of strong public dissent, the Government have manifested the same reaction, riding roughshod over all the opposition both in and outside the House and using their position and whipped votes to ram through their predetermined opinions regardless.
The Secretary of State hand-picked exclusively Tory Members for his review teams and then, when they gave evidence that he did not like, he overturned it. The pensions review team opposed the abolition of SERPS. The Secretary of State insisted on it for as long as he could.

The housing benefit review team opposed the requirement for families on supplementary benefit who have to pay 20 per cent. of their rates bill. The Secretary of State insisted on it—or perhaps could not stop the Prime Minister insisting on it. The housing benefit review committee opposed the ending of mortgage interest cover for the unemployed for the first six months on the dole. The Secretary of State insisted on it, evictions and all.
Then the Secretary of State issued his Green Paper of the great consultation exercise. He got 7,000 replies, over 95 per cent. of them against his proposals. The only bodies that lined up behind him were the Monday Club and the Institute of Directors. I think that that speaks volumes for the Secretary of State. He then blithely disregarded every criticism or objection and produced a White Paper and a Bill which in every essential respect reproduces the Green Paper which was so universally excoriated.
Then, when the Opposition sought to amend the Bill in accordance with clear majority opinion in the country, the Government have indiscriminately voted down every single improvement. The only concessions made—members of the Committee will, I am sure, endorse this conclusion—were a handful of surpassing triviality and now, entirely consistent with the rest of the farce surrounding consultation on the Bill, the Government are imposing a guillotine.
The Government have deployed every device to hand to force through this hugely unpopular and deeply resented Bill. Today's restrictive motion is only the latest device in an infamous series, yet what the Government cannot control, and the only forum in the last resort that matters, is public opinion. On that score, the Government have irredeemably failed. It is public opinion by which the Bill stands condemned, and it is public opinion by which, in the end, the Bill will be swept away.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): Among the speeches in the debate, we have had two from the Opposition Front Bench, from the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and from the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher).
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney said that this was the most controversial measure of the last seven years. If he does not mind my saying so, the point was slightly blunted by the fact that, at the stage at which he spoke, there were only six Labour Back Benchers present, and their number promptly went down to five. It may be controversial, but the right hon. Gentleman made it more controversial by misquoting the pension proposals. He talks about restricting the GMP inflation-proofing to 3 per cent. a year, but the policy is not to restrict it to 3 per cent. a year. Schemes inflation-proof GMP to 3 per cent. a year, but if inflation goes above 3 per cent., the state will fully inflation-proof over 3 per cent. a year.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West made a speech, in which he quoted and re-quoted chunks of his speech from the debate on Second Reading and basically said that a Labour Government will repeal the Bill. What he does not say, of course, is what he would put in its place. He does not say that because he does not know. Every time he gets anywhere near thinking that he does know, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) tells him that he cannot do it.
That has been one of the problems in Committee. We have sat for 114 hours and 23 minutes, we have debated almost 500 amendments, and still the hon. Gentleman does not know which way he is going. [HON. MEMBERS: "We did."] We started at a reasonable pace, spending 35 hours on the first 18 clauses and two schedules. Opposition Members say, "We did." If hon. Members compare my attendance in Committee on the Social Security Bill with what happened in the course of the Social Security Bill of 1975, they will find that Mrs. Barbara Castle attended four out of a possible 15 sittings and that I attended 22 out of a possible 30. Even the hon. Member for Oldham, West, on his arithmetic, must find that my attendance is better than that in Committee in 1975.
According to Action for Benefits, which has been briefing the Opposition—rightly so—we should have completed the Committee stage by Easter, Report and Third Reading by mid-April, and First Reading in the House of Lords by late April. Self-evidently we have not made that timetable. We are only half way through.
Still there is this embarrassing vacuum caused by the absence of any agreed policy from the Opposition. Indeed, there is only one thing that the hon. Member for Oldham, West finds more embarrassing than having nothing to put forward, and that is having to put forward some proposals that happen to coincide with what the Government are proposing, in which case we get even slower. On the social fund, for example, the House may remember the hon. Gentleman's foray into proposals. He put forward a scheme of his own on temporary emergency payment schemes and a scheme which implied loans, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security pointed out. We have taken 30 hours debating such principles on the social fund.
I agree with the hon. Members for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) and, indeed, for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) that, to use the phrase of the hon. Member for Caernarfon, this has been a happy Committee. If I may say so, a great deal of the credit for that is due to my ministerial hon. Friends the Members for Braintree (Mr. Newton) and for Huntingdon (Mr. Major).
Equally, I do not think that anyone can seriously claim that the Government have in any way rushed to impose a guillotine. We have already debated for 114 hours. After the timetable there is provision for a further 54 hours of debate. That means that the Committee will have sat for 42 sittings and have devoted 168 hours to the scrutiny of this legislation. I must tell the House that this is longer than any consideration given to a social security measure since the beginning of social security system in 1948.
As for precedents, I heard with mounting disbelief what the hon. Member for Oldham, West was saying. I remind the House that it was almost exactly 10 years ago, in July 1976, that the Labour Government imposed five guillotines in one day. The DHSS Bill guillotined that day was the Health Services Bill, which had started its Committee stage only four weeks earlier, while another of the major Bills guillotined that day was the Education Bill, one of the Ministers in charge of which was none other than the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett). I say to the House frankly that the Government are not prepared to take lectures from the Labour party on imposing guillotines.
There is no lack of precedent, nor can there be any reasonable complaint about a lack of consultation. The review of social security was started in November 1983.

Views were invited through the issue of consultation notes, 4,500 organisations and members of the public responded and Ministers held 19 public sessions to take oral evidence. A Green Paper was published and over 7,000 responses were made to that. A White Paper was published in December.
Never before have a Government carried out such an extensive consultation exercise prior to introducing legislation, and rightly so. If I may say again to the hon. Member for Oldham, West, the last Labour Government certainly carried out a review of supplementary benefit, but they did it not through Ministers but by sending a group of officials round the country to take evidence. In the review before the introduction of this legislation, Ministers took evidence in person. We have taken evidence from organisations such as the Trades Union Congress and various pressure groups.
As for the future, the timetable gives another 54 hours to debate important proposals on, for example, widows, maternity and death grant, common powers and the powers of local authorities. In addition, as we have made clear, there will be new clauses on statutory maternity allowance and industrial injuries. Those proposals have been subject to very extensive consultation over the past three months.
This is an important Bill to reform a system of social security which has remained unreformed for far too long. Almost no one defends the present system. It is too complex and does not give effective support to those who need it. It helps to create unjustifiable distortions and provides insufficient encouragement to the millions who do not have a pension of their own.
The Government have proposed a new and modern system, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) and my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) have said. Under that system, everyone will have a right to a personal pension and important new opportunities for occupational schemes are being created. Through the family credit scheme, we will provide additional resources for low-income families and income-related benefits will be put on the same basis.
The Second Reading debate took place at the end of January, when the Bill received an overwhelming majority. After 114 hours in Committee the Government are entitled to move a timetable motion, particularly given the extra time that we shall devote to consideration of the Bill in Committee.
I suggest that the timetable motion does not come as any surprise or disappointment to Opposition Members. When at business questions last Thursday my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal announced the Government's intention to move the timetable motion, the Leader of the Opposition was so overcome and outraged that he forgot to mention the issue in his question to my right hon. Friend. We must believe that the Leader of the Opposition was rendered speechless or that he actually thought the guillotine was no bad thing. There must be many on the Opposition Benches, not to mention Members of the Standing Committee, who share that view. Given that some of my hon. Friends helped them out last night, they might like to consider returning the compliment now and supporting the Government motion.
Whatever happens, this is an important Bill. Even with the proposed timetable that we are putting forward, the Government are providing more time for the consideration


of a piece of social security legislation than has been given at any time during the past 40 years. I ask for the support of the House for the motion.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 280, Noes 195.

Division No. 142]
[7.35 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Dunn, Robert


Amess, David
Durant, Tony


Arnold, Tom
Dykes, Hugh


Ashby, David
Eggar, Tim


Aspinwall, Jack
Emery, Sir Peter


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Evennett, David


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Fallon, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Farr, Sir John


Baldry, Tony
Fletcher, Alexander


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Batiste, Spencer
Forman, Nigel


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bellingham, Henry
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bendall, Vivian
Fry, Peter


Benyon, William
Galley, Roy


Best, Keith
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Glyn, Dr Alan


Blackburn, John
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Grant, Sir Anthony


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Greenway, Harry


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Griffiths, Sir Eldon


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Grist, Ian


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Grylls, Michael


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hannam, John


Bright, Graham
Harris, David


Brinton, Tim
Haselhurst, Alan


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney


Browne, John
Hayward, Robert


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Henderson, Barry


Budgen, Nick
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Bulmer, Esmond
Hicks, Robert


Burt, Alistair
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Butcher, John
Hill, James


Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam
Hind, Kenneth


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Holt, Richard


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Carttiss, Michael
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Cash, William
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Chapman, Sydney
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Churchill, W. S.
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hunter, Andrew


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Clegg, Sir Walter
Irving, Charles


Cockeram, Eric
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Colvin, Michael
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Conway, Derek
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Cope, John
Knox, David


Cormack, Patrick
Lamont, Norman


Corrie, John
Lang, Ian


Couchman, James
Lawler, Geoffrey


Cranborne, Viscount
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Crouch, David
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Lilley, Peter


Dicks, Terry
Lord, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Dover, Den
Lyell, Nicholas





McCurley, Mrs Anna
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Macfarlane, Neil
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Sayeed, Jonathan


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Major, John
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Malins, Humfrey
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Maples, John
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Marland, Paul
Silvester, Fred


Marlow, Antony
Sims, Roger


Mates, Michael
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Mather, Carol
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Maude, Hon Francis
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Speed, Keith


Mellor, David
Speller, Tony


Merchant, Piers
Spencer, Derek


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Squire, Robin


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Miscampbell, Norman
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Steen, Anthony


Moate, Roger
Stern, Michael


Monro, Sir Hector
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)


Moore, Rt Hon John
Stokes, John


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Sumberg, David


Moynihan, Hon C.
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Mudd, David
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Murphy, Christopher
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Neale, Gerrard
Temple-Morris, Peter


Nelson, Anthony
Terlezki, Stefan


Neubert, Michael
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Newton, Tony
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Nicholls, Patrick
Thurnham, Peter


Norris, Steven
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Onslow, Cranley
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Tracey, Richard


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Trippier, David


Osborn, Sir John
Trotter, Neville


Ottaway, Richard
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Viggers, Peter


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Waddington, David


Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Pawsey, James
Waldegrave, Hon William


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Walden, George


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Pollock, Alexander
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Portillo, Michael
Wall, Sir Patrick


Powell, William (Corby)
Waller, Gary


Powley, John
Ward, John


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Price, Sir David
Warren, Kenneth


Proctor, K. Harvey
Watson, John


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Watts, John


Raffan, Keith
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Wheeler, John


Rathbone, Tim
Whitfield, John


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Whitney, Raymond


Renton, Tim
Wilkinson, John


Rhodes James, Robert
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Winterton, Nicholas


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Wolfson, Mark


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Wood, Timothy


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Roe, Mrs Marion



Rossi, Sir Hugh
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rost, Peter
Mr. Archie Hamilton and


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Mr. Gerald Malone.


NOES


Abse, Leo
Ashdown, Paddy


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack


Alton, David
Ashton, Joe


Anderson, Donald
Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)






Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Heffer, Eric S.


Barnett, Guy
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Barron, Kevin
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Home Robertson, John


Beith, A. J.
Howells, Geraint


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Hoyle, Douglas


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)


Bermingham, Gerald
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Blair, Anthony
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Janner, Hon Greville


Boyes, Roland
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
John, Brynmor


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Johnston, Sir Russell


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Kennedy, Charles


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Kirkwood, Archy


Caborn, Richard
Lambie, David


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Leadbitter, Ted


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Leighton, Ronald


Campbell, Ian
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Litherland, Robert


Canavan, Dennis
Livsey, Richard


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cartwright, John
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Loyden, Edward


Clarke, Thomas
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Clay, Robert
McGuire, Michael


Clelland, David Gordon
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Cohen, Harry
McKelvey, William


Conlan, Bernard
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Maclennan, Robert


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
McNamara, Kevin


Corbett, Robin
McTaggart, Robert


Corbyn, Jeremy
McWilliam, John


Craigen, J. M.
Madden, Max


Crowther, Stan
Marek, Dr John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Cunningham, Dr John
Martin, Michael


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Maxton, John


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Dewar, Donald
Meacher, Michael


Dixon, Donald
Michie, William


Dobson, Frank
Mikardo, Ian


Dormand, Jack
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Douglas, Dick
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Dubs, Alfred
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Nellist, David


Eadie, Alex
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Eastham, Ken
O'Brien, William


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
O'Neill, Martin


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Ewing, Harry
Park, George


Fatchett, Derek
Patchett, Terry


Faulds, Andrew
Pendry, Tom


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Pike, Peter


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Powell, Rt Hon J. E.


Fisher, Mark
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Flannery, Martin
Raynsford, Nicholas


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Randall, Stuart


Forrester, John
Raynsford, Nick


Foster, Derek
Rhodes James, Robert


Foulkes, George
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Freud, Clement
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Garrett, W. E.
Robertson, George


George, Bruce
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Rogers, Allan


Godman, Dr Norman
Rooker, J. W.


Golding, John
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Gould, Bryan
Rowlands, Ted


Gourlay, Harry
Sedgemore, Brian


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Sheerman, Barry


Hardy, Peter
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Harman, Ms Harriet
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)





Silkin, Rt Hon J.
Wainwright, R.


Skinner, Dennis
Wallace, James


Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)
Wareing, Robert


Soley, Clive
Weetch, Ken


Steel, Rt Hon David
White, James


Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
Wigley, Dafydd


Stott, Roger
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Strang, Gavin
Wilson, Gordon


Straw, Jack
Winnick, David


Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)



Thorne, Stan (Preston)
Tellers for the Noes:


Tinn, James
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Torney, Tom
Mr. Sean Hughes.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:

Committee

1.—(1) The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 1st May 1986.

(2) Proceedings on the Bill at a sitting of the Standing Committee on the said 1st May may continue until Ten o'clock, whether or not the House is adjourned before that time, and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 2nd May.

Report and Third Reading

2.—(1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in two allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the second of those days; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 45 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on Consideration such part of those days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.

(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolutions as to the proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.

(3) The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 45 may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.

(4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on Consideration of the Bill are taken.

Procedure in Standing Committee

3.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.

(2) No Motion shall be moved in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who makes, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.

4. No Motion shall be moved to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.

Conclusion of proceedings in Committee

5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

Dilatory Motions

6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time on allotted days

7.—(1) On an allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.

(2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 10 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of two hours.

(3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of two hours.

Private business

8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

Conclusion of proceedings

9.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others), that is to say—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is moved by a Member of the Government;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;

(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders

10.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or
(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Re-committal

12.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of re-committal.

(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to re-commit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation

13. In this Order—
allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day or is set down for consideration on that day;
the Bill" means the Social Security Bill:
Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

Orders of the Day — National Health Service (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for Health (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This short Bill contains provision on three health issues. All reflect the Government's underlying objective for the Health Service: a continuing commitment to promote the interest of patients while making the best use of available resources.
Clause 1 seeks to apply the food hygiene legislation to health authorities, and thus remove Crown immunity from hospital catering.
Catering in the NHS involves three cooked meals a day, seven days a week and 52 weeks a year. Most of those meals have to be served to patients in their wards, which may be far from the kitchens in which the meals have been prepared. On any day there are about 350,000 patients occupying hospital beds in England and Wales, many with special dietary needs. That is a million meals a day—over 350 million meals a year—just for the patients. Also, the staff require catering facilities throughout the day and night.
Many patients suffering from chronic or acute infections, which lower their natural resistance to disease, acquire food-borne infections more easily than healthy people. They are also likely to be more severely affected by such infections.
There can be no doubt about the difficult catering task facing health authorities and the need for very high standards of hygiene to be maintained in hospitals. This need was brought home by the tragic events at Stanley Royd hospital, Wakefield, in August 1984, which resulted in the deaths of 19 patients.
The Bill will apply the Food Act 1984 and associated regulations to health authorities in England and Wales. In Scotland, it will apply the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act 1956 and the Control of Food Premises (Scotland) Act 1977 to health boards. This will make hospital catering subject to hygiene standards in the handling, storage and temperature control of food. Lifting Crown immunity will also give local authority environmental health officers a legal right to enter health authority premises, and infringements of the food legislation could lead to prosecution.
I want to make it clear to the House that these changes should not greatly affect the day-to-day position in the vast majority of hospitals which maintain high standards. Circular HC(77)24 gives clear guidance about the need to maintain standards, in line with food hygiene regulations. The circular sets out arrangements for open access to NHS catering. Health authorities have invited local authority environmental health officers to inspect kitchens at will and to make appropriate recommendations. Environmental health officers have not been able, because of Crown immunity, to enforce the food legislation through the courts.
Where authorities have allowed standards to slip, there will need to be some re-ordering of priorities to ensure compliance.
The Bill's provisions will change the legal relationship between health authorities and environmental health officers, but in practice it should not change the good working relationships that exist in most cases. In general, I would not expect the effects of this Bill to place any significant new burden on local authorities.
Environmental health officers, in carrying out the important task of inspecting food establishments, are engaged for the most part in giving advice and guidance both to management and staff. While they have at their disposal the very important sanction of being able to threaten legal proceedings if standards are inadequate, the use of this sanction is very much a weapon of last resort. Environmental health officers are well qualified professionals, not only in the sense of being well-versed in the principles and practice of food hygiene, but in terms of the way in which they go about their business. They are well aware that giving encouragement and sound, practical advice is far more effective in achieving good standards than the use of legal sanctions.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The Minister will be aware that a report produced last year identified 97 hospitals as being capable of prosecution in the sense that their standards of hygiene were unsatisfactory. If at that time they were in a position to be prosecuted but could not be, may I assume that, with the passage of the Bill, they would be prosecuted? May I also assume that, if they are not prosecuted, it is because their standards have improved? Can we be assured that resources will be made available to ensure that standards are raised in each of those hospitals?

Mr. Hayhoe: Resources would not affect the decision to prosecute. The environmental health officer would decide whether to prosecute if he found infringements of the food regulations which were not being corrected.
Last autumn much publicity was given to allegations of poor standards of hygiene in the NHS. The survey conducted by the Institution of Environmental Health Officers suggested that 10 per cent. of hospitals contravened the food hygiene regulations to such an extent that prosecutions would have been pursued had they been allowed. In calling for urgent action by the health authorities concerned to deal with unsatisfactory kitchens, I also put in hand a review of the case for continued Crown immunity for hospital kitchens.
As my right hon. Friend announced on 6 February, the Government concluded that further steps needed to be taken to ensure effective management and supervision in hospital kitchens. General managers, who are responsible and accountable for these matters, are now in place. To assist them, my Department will soon be issuing revised guidance to make clear the standards which must be achieved, to emphasise the need for staff to receive proper supervision and training, and to ensure that there is no doubt about our serious intention to safeguard patients and staff in hospitals. My right hon. Friend announced that Crown immunity would be removed from hospital catering.

Mr. Allan Rogers: I agree with the Minister's proposition that the Health Service must be examined, especially the standard of hygiene in some


institutions. Will he give an assurance that, if an environmental health officer discovers that a health authority is in breach of the hygiene regulations, money will be made available to that health authority to bring the kitchens up to standard; or is the Minister saying hypocritically that he has appointed general managers, that environmental health officers will point out the problems, and the Government will urge improved hygiene without making more resources available? Will the Government say to health authorities, as they did with the nurses' pay award, "You can have it as long as you find it from somewhere else."?

Mr. Hayhoe: The position on resources has been made perfectly clear in the House many times. I repeat that additional resources of £650 million are being allocated during this financial year. Within those budgets, the health authorities must deploy their resources and give adequate priority to meeting the task. That position is entirely fair. It was made clear by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services when he was asked much the same questions, so I shall maintain that position.

Dr. John Marek: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hayhoe: No, I will not give way, because the position is entirely clear.
This legislation will make hospitals subject to the same food hygiene requirements, with the same enforcement powers, as apply to other premises where food is stored, prepared and served. Together with the—

Dr. Marek: rose—

Mr. Hayhoe: —strengthened guidance, and helped by a constructive—

Dr. Marek: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Gentleman must not persist. The Minister has made it clear that he will not give way.

Mr. Hayhoe: Together with the strengthened guidance, and helped by a constructive relationship with environmental health officers, it will underpin—

Dr. Marek: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not persist in asking the Minister to give way.

Mr. Hayhoe: Together with the strengthened guidance, and helped by a constructive relationship with environmental health officers—

Dr. Marek: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not persist in defying the Chair. It is for the Minister to decide whether he gives way. It is clear that he does not intend to give way. The hon. Gentleman must not persist in ignoring instructions from the Chair.

Mr. Hayhoe: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman thinks that this is a meeting of the Finance Bill Committee, where Ministers continually give way courteously. I see no point in giving way now. The matter has been made clear many times, and no doubt the hon. Gentleman will make the point in his own way in his speech.
Our proposals will underpin management action to ensure high food standards in hospitals.
Before leaving this issue, I should like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), whose private Member's Bill on Crown immunity helped to focus public attention on the importance of this issue.
Clause 2 of the Bill proposes to change the arrangements for retail pharmacists to take up NHS contracts. It provides powers for family practitioner committees to grant a pharmacist's application for an NHS contract in circumstances only where it is considered to be necessary or desirable for patient services.
Let me set out the background to this proposal. In 1985, after more than a year of complex and hard negotiations, between the pharmacists' negotiating body, the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee, and officials, agreement on a new NHS contract for pharmacists was reached. Both sides agreed on the desirability of early implementation. However, in the light of legal advice, the Government decided they could not proceed with the new contract until new powers in main legislation had been obtained. Clause 2 should remove doubt about the legal basis for the new contract and allow implementation later this year. The overall aim of the new contract is to develop a pharmaceutical service which will better satisfy the interests of the patient, the profession and the taxpayer.

Mr. Jim Craigen: Leaving aside the special problems that arise in London, is the Minister not concerned about the impact of these proposals on small chemists' shops in housing estates, inner-city areas and rural areas in Scotland, and indeed in England and Wales? Does he not realise that many small chemists fear that they will go out of business as a result of these changes?

Mr. Hayhoe: I do not think that is true. In fact, the small chemists in rural areas will perhaps feel that their future is more secure as a result of these proposals. From the information that has come to me, as regards the chemists' negotiating body, there is overwhelming support for the introduction of this new contract. I have received more than 300 letters from hon. Members, the vast majority urging the implementation of the contract and only a tiny handful expressing some reservations.
The new contract will enable family practitioner committees to make progress towards a more even distribution of NHS pharmacies, which will better meet the needs of patient without being wasteful of NHS resources. As things now stand anybody who owns a pharmacy can apply for an NHS contract. Except in rural areas where special arrangements already operate, that application must be granted. The local family practitioner committee has no discretion in the matter. Contractors are paid on a cost-plus basis, so every additional NHS contract automatically adds further costs to the NHS to be met by the taxpayer. Therefore, under existing arrangements, there is little to promote efficiency, innovation or improved services for patients.
Over the past five years, the number of pharmacies with NHS contracts has risen by about 150 a year net. The present rate of increase is higher still. Most of the increase has been in urban areas, where provision for NHS purposes is often already entirely adequate, if not even somewhat excessive, For example, in one part of London there are 21 pharmacies within one square mile. Therefore, the present system has developed so that the


costs to the taxpayer of providing a satisfactory pharmaceutical service are rising, without providing any real extra benefits to patients.
The proposed new arrangements on the allocation of contracts will help to bring about a better distribution of services. But this is not the only feature of the new contract.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Will not the effect of this new contract be to insulate pharmacies from competition? If so, will that not result in a worse service for the consumer? In the end, would it not be remarkably surprising if pharmacists were not to welcome the new contract, because it will increase the capital value of their businesses, enable them to merge with their competitors and receive substantial subsidies from the state?

Mr. Hayhoe: I do not believe that it will lead to inefficiency. What does lead to inefficiency is when anyone can establish a pharmacy and demand a contract as of right. The contract should not be there just for the having, at the taxpayer's expense. I am very surprised that my hon. Friend should be moving in that direction. Surely what he wants is that contracts between the pharmacies and the National Health Service which contain an element of taxpayer subsidy should be awarded only when they are in the interests of the NHS and of patient services. In these circumstances, the arrangements that we propose will provide a better service for patients.
The new contract, which has been negotiated as an integrated package of measures, provides—

Mr. Graham Bright: As the decision is to be made by the family practitioner committees, will the Government offer criteria or guidelines on which the committees can base their decisions?

Mr. Hayhoe: Broadly speaking, the family practitioner committee will make its decision in the interests of ensuring an adequate and proper service for the patients in its area. That seems to me a proper and reasonable course. If my hon. Friend wishes to pursue the detail of this matter, it wll be appropriate for him to do so in Committee.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: Why has the Minister's section, in common with its other branch on the social security review and the social fund, set its face so firmly against some form of proper appeal mechanism? Why is the argument being trotted out yet again that this is simply excessive bureaucracy, when there must surely be some method whereby those whose applications are unsuccessful can pursue the matter, if they feel that there has been discrimination, at a higher level—preferably at ministerial level?

Mr. Hayhoe: There will be an appeal system at local level. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman wants this appeal system to be local, regional and national, with all the bureaucracy that that would entail, particularly since the issues are those of local need and local determination.
Another advantage of this contract is that there will be more frequent and effective inquiries associated with the annual remuneration settlement.

Mr. Michael Morris: rose—

Mr. Hayhoe: I have been giving way rather a lot, but, knowing my hon. Friend's particular interest in these matters, I give way again.

Mr. Michael Morris: Can my right hon. Friend explain why, if the rural dispensing committee of the family practitioner committee for dispensing practitioners has a national appeal mechanism, there is not automatically an appeal for what, in a sense, is the complementary body?

Mr. Hayhoe: We are trying to reduce the amount of bureaucratic apparatus related to these matters. I would have hoped that would commend itself, at least to many Members on the Government Benches.
There will also be a new payment structure, which is simpler to understand, with incentives for efficient contractors. There will be enhanced support for essential local pharmacies in sparsely populated rural areas, which goes some way to meeting the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen).
Perhaps I should add that the committee of inquiry into pharmacy, established by the Nuffield Foundation, has recently produced a report which I have little doubt we shall all be discussing in different forums at a later stage. I note the committee's general support for the new pharmacist's contract.

Mr. Rogers: The Minister has just given way to the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris). I hope that he will not take too much notice of what the hon. Gentleman says, especially as, in the Register of Members' Interests, he is shown as being paid by various drug companies to represent their interests in the House of Commons. I hope that the Minister will take more notice of ordinary Members than of those on the Government Benches who are constantly interrupting him, who have strong vested interests and who receive remuneration from drug companies to represent their interests in the House.

Mr. Hayhoe: The hon. Gentleman seems to be very wide of the mark, as he was in his earlier intervention. We are talking not about the pharmaceutical industry, but about pharmacies. If, even at this stage of the evening, hon. Gentlemen do not know the difference between pharmaceutical companies and local pharmacists, I hope that they will keep their bottoms firmly on the Benches and not seek to intervene again.
I am delighted to see that the Nuffield Foundation committee's important report contains an endorsement of the new arrangement for allocating NHS contracts which, it considers, are "basically well conceived". I agree. I believe that overall the new contract represents an imaginative, comprehensive and integrated package which is, above all, fair to the patient, the profession and the taxpayer.
Clause 3 deals with the remuneration and reimbursement arrangements for the four NHS contractor professions: general practitioners, dentists, opticians and pharmacists. Since the NHS was set up, the principle underlying payments to these contractor professions has been that they should receive their average costs plus an element for profit or professional remuneration. Their true costs can only be established restrospectively, through periodic inquiries. In the interim period, payments are based on cost estimates.
Under such an arrangement, it is only fair, both to the professions and to the taxpayer, that there should be a mechanism for correcting past payments which are shown to have been inadequate—that is being fair to the professions—or excessive—that is being fair to the


taxpayer. Payments to contractors include £2·5 billion a year to reimburse them for the average costs of the service they provide. So even small margins between estimated and actual costs can represent considerable sums due to one side or the other.
These arrangements, which have been established and operated for many years, have recently been challenged by legal action. Let me briefly explain the position.
The National Health Service Act 1977 gives Health Ministers powers to make regulations and determinations for the fees payable to the four contractor professions. In 1984, the legal basis of the long-standing arrangements was challenged by the body which represents retail pharmacists—the Pharmaceuticial Services Negotiating Committee. The High Court ruled against this challenge and in favour of the existing arrangements. But, in order to make the statutory position clear, the Government, as part of the 1984 Health and Social Security Bill, proposed to Parliament, which agreed, amendment of the 1977 Act. This amendment had a single intention: to clarify the arrangements as they have been understood and operated by the professions and successive Governments for many years.
The Government and most professional interests believed this had been achieved, but two organisations representing opticians—the Association of Optical Practitioners and the Federation of Optical Corporate Bodies—challenged the use of these powers in both the English and the Scottish courts. They questioned the Government's attempts to recover £11 million over-reimbursed for NHS spectacles. In England the court ruled that powers to reflect overpayments in future fees were too obliquely expressed to achieve the effect originally intended. In Scotland the court found that power to recover overpayments of one type of fee—for example, optical dispensing—by adjusting other fees for opticians—for example, for sight testing—was inadequate. The 1984 legislation was therefore shown to be defective in that it did not achieve what had been intended. This clause will, I hope, re-establish the position.
However, the opticians have made strong representations to me that the powers in this clause should not be used to make a further attempt to recover the £11 million which was the subject of recent court proceedings. There were indeed some special features attached to that over-reimbursement, which relates to periods that go as far back as 1977. In the circumstances, I think it is right that the opticians should not be deprived of the fruits of their court victory, and I give the clear undertaking on behalf of the Government that no further attempt to recover the £11 million will be made.
I can also give the assurance that there is no intention whatsoever to change the current system for determining the pay of medical and dental practitioners, which is based on the recommendations of their independent review body.
This clause does not represent any change in Government policy. It does not widen the powers which were thought to be available on the determination of fees for the professions, but it does seek to put beyond reasonable doubt the legal basis of the long-standing arrangements for remuneration of NHS contractor professions in the interests of both the professions and the taxpayer.
I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Frank Dobson: I will make myself even more popular by trying to be as brief as possible to enable the maximum number of my right hon. and hon. Friends to get in. Indeed, I shall attempt to be as unprovocative as possible in order to minimise the number of interventions from the Government Benches.
In general, we welcome the proposals in the Bill, but there are many important issues which need to be clarified and changes which we believe should be made in Committee. It is necessary to follow the Minister in praising the very substantial number of people who earn their living and do a decent job of work trying to provide good standards of food for patients and other staff in hospitals all over England, Wales and Scotland. Many of them work in very difficult circumstances and we should bear in mind the difficulties they face and try to make sure that those difficulties are kept to a minimum.
One of these difficulties is that Crown immunity has prevented environmental health officers, with the full benefit of the law, from monitoring what happens in hospital kitchens. Consequently, standards have not been as high as they should be. The Bill proposes to lift Crown immunity from hospital catering, to make hospital kitchens subject to the same rules, inspection procedures and possible prosecution as other kitchens, and quite right too.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Does my hon. Friend not agree that the report on the Stanley Royd outbreak showed that the absence of Crown immunity would not have prevented the situation there? What is the position in circumstances such as those at Stanley Royd? Does my hon. Friend not agree with me that the only answer there is increased resources?

Mr. Dobson: I know my hon. Friend's close involvement with the Stanley Royd hospital, and I was going on to say that the lifting of Crown immunity is not the full answer to the problem, although I never really accepted the judgment of those responsible for producing the Stanley Royd report that the lifting of Crown immunity would not have a substantial effect. I thought that its impact on the way people behaved was minimised. It is a pity that, after all the pressure exerted by the environmental health officers organisations and the trade unions within the National Health Service it took the deaths at Stanley Royd to jolt the Government into giving way and accepting that a change in the law was necessary.
The Opposition believe that the Government should go further than they have gone and remove Crown immunity from all NHS premises and every aspect of NHS activity. In particular, they should apply the full rigours of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to the NHS. If the removal of Crown immunity from the kitchens is intended to give better protection to the patients, the staff are entitled to the protection that is given to the people in other places of work. We see no reason why they should be excluded, particularly as a large number of the materials and many of the processes in hospitals are intrinsically rather more dangerous than many of those in industrial premises.
The Opposition would like to praise the environmental health officers and the NHS trade unions for the pressure that they have brought to bear to create the change in the law which the Government now propose.
To return to the point which my hon. Friend made in his intervention, we do not believe that just lifting Crown immunity from hospital catering will of itself do what is necessary to improve conditions in hospital kitchens. I have said before and I will say again that we need to remember that the Stanley Royd hospital was built as the West Riding paupers lunatic asylum in 1818, when Napoleon was still alive. Yet we expected, and continue to expect, professional and ancillary workers in that hospital to provide a good standard of service. If they are to do this, a lot more money will have to be spent.
In the Stanley Royd report the highest estimate of the cost of bringing the kitchens there up to scratch was about £600,000. We believe that massive additional sums of money will be necessary throughout the Health Service to improve hospital kitchens enough to make them safe from prosecution. No one wants to lift Crown immunity so that hospital managements can be taken to court. We want to bring the statutory pressures to bear to make sure that the standards in the kitchens are raised. That is the end that every hon. Member wishes and, having willed that end, the Government must will the means.
The Government also know that their efforts to privatise hospital catering have so far not been very successful. Most catering companies will not touch these contracts with a barge pole. Hospital staff and patients will want some reassurance from the Minister tonight and in Committee that the cost of bringing the sub-standard hospital kitchens up to standard will not be used as an excuse to promote more privatisation of catering. If the lifting of Crown immunity is exploited for that purpose, any credit that the Government might justly claim for getting rid of Crown immunity will be exposed simply as cynical manipulation.
Above all, the Government must recognise that high standards in hospital kitchens, like high standards in the rest of the hospital, cost money. High standards cannot be achieved on the cheap. Whatever the learned people who produced the Stanley Royd report may have concluded, I cannot get out of my mind the fact that Stanley Royd hospital was spending £25 per patient per day for everything when the national average spending was £40 per patient per day. I believe that there are connections between what we spend and what we get. We need to go into those matters in detail in the later stages of the Bill.
I should like to deal with the proposed changes in the pharmacists' contract. Here again, the Labour party supports the Government's intention to promote the rational distribution of pharmacies by changing the current licensing system. We note with pleasure that the Government accept that only a licensing system will achieve what is required and that the free play of market forces, so precious to the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) who, having made his point, has just disappeared, would result only in larger areas of the country being denuded of proper pharmaceutical services.
Here again, we have severe doubts about the detailed proposals and we wish to explore them carefully in Committee. In particular, we do not want to create the possibility of useful local pharmacies taking the Government's compensation and shutting up shop. I am not suggesting for one minute that the Government are trying to bring about the premature, unnecessary and damaging closure of useful pharmacies. However, as they presided over a massive surge of people taking redundancy payments within the NHS and then had to re-employ some

of them on new contracts so that they got their redundancy money and pay as well, I think that the Department of Health and Social Security will need to look carefully at any system for compensating people who are going out of business. Basically, we want to keep the most useful pharmacies in business.
As someone representing an inner-city area, I view with concern the strict application of the proposed rule that pharmacies will be permitted to have what is called essential small pharmacy status and the income support that goes with it if, and only if, they are 2 km from the next pharmacy. That is a long way in some inner-city areas, with many main roads to cross and high crime rates, especially if the person crossing the roads or walking along crime infested streets is old or a woman, or, as in some cases, both.
We recognise the desire of the Government not to give subsidies to chains of chemists' shops which probably decide their locations and opening hours on an assessment of their prospects of selling rubber ducks or pocket calculators to tourists rather than providing a pharmacy service to local people. I suspect that the Minister was talking about my constituency when he referred to the area with the maximum number of pharmacy contracts. Underwoods has opened many branches in my constituency, particularly on Tottenham Court road and Charing Cross road. It seems to work on the principle that no Underwoods shop is safe unless it is within sight of the next one. Those shops provide a pharmacy as a peripheral activity. The bulk of their activity is in general merchandising. I think that it is eminently sensible that the Government should not want to provide them with a public subsidy.
In my constituency—not 2 km from the nearest Underwoods—I know people who value their small local pharmacy with a familiar face dispensing prescriptions who knows the family and knows the person who has come in. We believe that that sort of relationship should be encouraged. We also believe that that would be particularly important if the future of the pharmaceutical profession is to lie, as suggested in the Nuffield report, in greater and more effective collaboration with other local health care professionals.
We also welcome the possibility that pharmacies should specify the services they will provide, such as domiciliary services. I hope that the family practitioner committees will use their new powers to promote more and better pharmaceutical services geared to the needs of local people. In some areas that should include the co-ordination of opening hours with those of doctors, which does not always occur. It should also include some effort to ensure that opening hours are related, especially in rural areas, to the public transport services so that people can catch a bus, go to their doctor, pick up the dispensed prescription and get home all on public transport, if it is possible.
We would not like the Bill to do anything that puts at risk the dispensing services in rural areas, which are now protected by the Rural Dispensing Committee, introduced by the previous Labour Government. We are very keen, and we will be keen in Committee, to ensure that nothing accidentally damages the best parts of the existing local pharmacy services. We shall use the Committee to propose amendments to secure the best interests of patients and the profession of pharmacy.
Here, I shall make a personal point, rather than expressing the view of the Labour party. It has to be said


that there remains an ever present conflict between the professional conduct of a pharmacy and the running of a shop. Until that is resolved it seems unlikely that society will be prepared to make as much use as it could of the potential of the pharmaceutical profession to make a bigger contribution to improvements in the nation's health.
I now turn to the proposal to legalise the clawback of overpayments to opticians, pharmacists, doctors and dentists. I will not follow the Minister's able recitation of the long and dubious history of this arrangement, dodging in and out of the courts. However, I notice that none of those responsible for the unlawful decisions which were made at one time or another were disqualified from office or surcharged for the cost of what they brought about. We have no objection to the concept of genuine clawbacks. However, it is not logically possible to claw back that which was never given in the first place. We will not support any proposals which would legalise retrospective changes in the conventions under which one lot of contract terms were originally agreed.
I said that I would be brief and I have been brief. I emphasise that we broadly welcome the proposals in the Bill. However, we would look in Committee and on Report to a constructive arrangement with the Government to ensure that all that is done brings about improvements in our hospitals and improvements in our pharmaceutical service and other family health services, and that nothing, either deliberately or accidentally, damages the good parts of what we have already.

Mr. Michael Morris: As always, I inevitably declare an interest on National Health Service matters—but not the interests that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) mentioned, because neither of those is relevant. The two interests I shall declare are relevant. The first is that my wife is a dispensing practitioner and, therefore, in a sense is providing a complementary service to pharmacists in the rural areas where she dispenses. Secondly, in 1985 I was an adviser to Underwoods and I am likely to be so again. Those two interests are relevant unlike the interests which the hon. Member for Rhondda tried to toss across the Floor of the House. I think that I can say that he would have to get up very early to catch me out in not declaring an interest.
Further, on clause 3, as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I might have to declare an interest, in that that Committee is urgent in its desire to ensure that savings that are made in the National Health Service are put back into the budget of the NHS.
I should like to consider the broad principles of the Bill and pick out one or two areas on which I should like to question my right hon. Friend the Minister. It is unusual, to say the least, to find a Conservative Government setting up a cartel. There would have to be overwhelming benefit to patients for it to be totally acceptable to me and, I suspect, others of my hon. Friends. The Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee has tried for nearly 30 years to set up that cartel.
My right hon. Friend the Minister said that he did not envisage the number of pharmacies declining. Most of the evidence to date is that the number is likely to decline, but

let us assume for the moment that the number remains reasonably constant. It is a fact that in Britain today there are fewer pharmacies per thousand of the population than anywhere else in Europe except Switzerland. Compared with France, we have half the number of pharmacies per thousand of the population. The comparison with Germany and Italy is similar. Therefore, we are not over-endowed with pharmacies. That is the point that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) was making.
I thought that the distance given in the guidelines was 1 km between pharmacies. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said 2 km. I suggest that the walk from Trafalgar square along the length of the Strand to the Law Courts, which is 1 km, is quite a long walk—not that people like me are the fittest of the population, but certainly for elderly people it is too far to walk. Hon. Members must consider that distance in Committee. There is the other dimension, that if there is to be a geographical difference, there will be more pressure on the general practitioner service. I thought that part of the Government's policy and, indeed, accepted policy across the Benches, was to reduce some of the pressure on that service.
The planned distribution proposal was rejected by the Royal Commission in 1979. The only other time in the Health Service when we have had a planned distribution service was under the Willneck committee, for medical students. We all know what happened then. We ran short of doctors, and we have only just come out of that crisis. Therefore, I do not think that the portents for planned services are that good.
There is talk of how much money will be saved. I believe that the figure started at £4 million, and it is now reckoned to be £5 million. That is to be welcomed. Anything that saves public money is to be welcomed. However, I note that already local pharmacy committees are talking about having the back-up of a secretarial service. There are about 100 LPCs. Half a secretary per LPC, at about £4,000, with overheads, pushes the figure up to £1 million before one can say Jack Robinson. That needs to be watched carefully.
I interrupted the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister to ask him about the machinery for appeals and the reviewing of applicants. I question how it can ever be right, in a commercial world, to have an applicant reviewed by other commercial applicants. The criteria make it almost impossible for anyone to be totally objective. I see that the committees are to have three chemists and four lay people. Unless one says that there will be no traders, no one with any family links, no one who is a member of the same golf club and so on, that creates a difficulty.
I am worried about the new entrants, particularly individual pharmacists—the young man or woman who has recently qualified. Such people will have to go through the hoop to get started. They will have to go to the local authority for planning permission, find the site and make arrangements for this, that and the other. When they go to the estate agent, all that they will be able to say is that they do not have their contract yet, but they hope to get it. If they are competing with someone else in the high street for a desirable site, the odds are that they will lose it. The guidelines refer to a time scale of two months, with an appeal mechanism of perhaps three months. In a competitive environment, the young entrants will lose


those good sites. That disadvantage is not there for the multiple, which will come in and set up shop, apply for the contract and take a risk.
I refer to the large stores. How will any lay person choose between Boots, Savory and Moore and Kingswood—any of the major multiples that may be competing for a contract?
The appeals machinery is absolutely central. At the moment it is proposed that a neighbouring LPC should be involved, but that will give rise to all the problems of regional interests. My right hon. Friend the Minister already has the mechanism of the Rural Dispensing Committee. It is not bureaucratic. It works smoothly and is relatively inexpensive. Why on earth do we not have the same procedure under the Bill?
Finally, I refer to the future of chemists. The PSNC represents about 10,000 contractors and there are about 34,000 qualified pharmacists. However, this worries me. What chance is there for the 15,000 employees working in pharmacies up and down the country to set up their own business? It seems to me that everything is militating against them. What chance is there for qualified pharmacists in the hospital service or industry who want to set up their own small chemist shop? The dice are loaded against them.
I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to think again about certain aspects of clause 2. The Nuffield report on pharmacies challenges the basis of payment. We are expecting the Green Paper on primary care any minute. I am not a betting man, but I suspect that elements of that will be contrary to clause 2.
The Minister has to look at the appeal mechanism closely. He must ensure that, whatever selection process the Committee ends up with, it is a disinterested means of selecting pharmacists. I, for one, do not know how that will be achieved.

Mr. Jack Ashley: I do not intend to follow the argument of the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris), if he will forgive me.
The aspect of the Bill that I want to deal with is Crown immunity. The Government have gone some way towards redeeming their reputation on Crown immunity, although it is a very short way—about 50 yards out of the mile that is necessary. The fact is that on the issue of Crown immunity we have had evasion and prevarication from the Government for years, and Ministers have refused to act until they have practically been compelled to do so.
When he opened the debate, the Minister for Health disingenuously paid tribute to the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), then ignored all those who actively campaigned and forced his hand. I want to leave the House under no illusion. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills did a marvellous job, and handled that Bill superbly, but the Minister was pretending that nobody else was active, by mentioning only that hon. Member. The fact is that the prime movers outside Parliament were John Edmonds of the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union and his colleagues in the union, and Clive Wadey and his colleagues in the Institution of Environmental Health Officers. They were joined in the campaign by the Royal College of Nursing, the Association of District Councils and other organisations.
That was outside Parliament. Inside Parliament, I have tabled many scores of questions, written letters to Ministers, taken deputations along to see them, tabled early-day motions, and so on. I finally drew up a ten-minute Bill, and it was that which the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills took on. He did a marvellous job, but let us be under no illusion. The Government were facing tremendous pressure from all these organisations and individuals, and the media backed up those campaigns. The TV programme "World in Action", The Guardian and the Daily Express all played significant roles in alerting public opinion, but it required the deaths of 17 people and the food poisoning of hundreds of others at Stanley Royd and elsewhere to force the Government to act on Crown immunity, even though they had refused to do so hitherto. They were compelled to do so by that sense of public outrage.
The Minister now says that the Government want to act. I welcome the Bill, so far as it goes, on Crown immunity. It will end the Dickensian conditions in hospital kitchens and put pressure on the health authorities. But it is only a beginning, because hospital kitchens are only a part of hospitals. Other parts and other institutions will also have to be dealt with.
The Bill gave the Government the opportunity to put things right, but they have ducked the challenge. They have neglected the evidence of people such as pest control officers—who helped in the campaign—about the extent of the invasion of vermin throughout some hospitals. Such vermin are not merely found in the kitchens, but are all over some of our hospitals—in the wards, in the packs of sterilised dressings and even in hypodermic needles. This legislation will not prevent health authorities from neglecting those problems, just as they neglected the kitchens. It is not too late, because the Bill can be extended and changed in Committee and elsewhere. I hope that such changes will be introduced.
Equally serious is the Government's neglect of workers in the NHS. It is unfair and unjust to give such workers less protection than elsewhere. The Crown notice system is an abysmal flop, because without sanctions Crown notices cannot be taken seriously. There is plenty of evidence that the system is a flop. I warn the Government that the campaign is now beginning again. I have been informed that the British Medical Association passed a resolution at its annual representative meeting, stating;
That this Meeting believes that Health and Safety at Work Regulations should be enforced on Crown Property".
The BMA will be joined by the GMBATU and the Institution of Environmental. Health Officers, as well as by myself, the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills and other hon. Members who have campaigned on these issues. We are not prepared to allow this small step forward to pose as the answer to the major problems of Crown immunity.
The Minister was deplorably evasive about resources when questioned by my hon. Friends. Money must be made available to ensure that conditions in our hospitals are put right. If that money is not made available, poor, old patients will continue to suffer. The Government should not be seen to be doing the right thing if they are not prepared to pay for it. To coin a phrase, there is no point in willing the ends if they are not prepared to provide the means. The Government should extend the provisions on Crown immunity and provide the cash that is necessary.

Dame Jill Knight: The Bill affects several parts of the Health Service, but I shall speak of its effects on only one—the opticians. I assure hon. Members that I have absolutely no pecuniary interest whatever in the Bill. However, the more I study clause 3, and the more I ponder its implications, the more worried I become. The House is tonight being asked—somewhat stealthily, in an omnibus Bill—to give the Secretary of State power to act in a way at which, had there been more publicity and had the Bill not been so complicated, there would have been howls of indignation all over the place.
Some time ago, the Secretary of State got it into his head—Lord knows why, or on what grounds—that between 1978 and 1985 opticians had been overpaid by some £14·2 million. This is a long-running saga, and on several occasions I asked for the basis of that claim. I was never given it. Others also asked, and were met by the same enigmatic silence.
In August 1985, still with no proper justification explained, the DHSS attempted, quite illegally, to recover the moneys from opticians by reducing their professional fees. I should explain that opticians get their money in two ways. First, they are paid a professional fee for sight-testing carried out by professionally trained men and women, and that fee is negotiated between the Government and opticians. There is also the question of the rates of reimbursement for providing the glasses, and the dispute was about the reimbursement, not the fee.
This debate is all the more extraordinary when one appreciates that the opticians have absolutely nothing to do with fixing the reimbursement that they should get for providing glasses. The Secretary of State fixed what they should get, and did so after consultation with the manufacturers of optical appliances.
It was neither just nor logical for the Secretary of State to say last August, "Oops, I am afraid that I fixed those fees too high. I shall just take a big slice back." The only justification ever given was that the mandarins at the DHSS decided that some opticians, not all—not even a large number—had bought frames at cut prices. The sin of it!
If one orders any commodity and agrees a price, one will pay when that commodity is ready. When presented with a bill after receiving the goods, it is totally unaceptable to say, "I think that you have paid less for the materials than you might have done, so I shall not pay what I agreed."
If the Ministry of Defence signs a contract to make 1,000 uniforms and agrees a price, it cannot, some time after the uniforms have been delivered and the bill has been paid, say, "We think that we paid too much. All of you must share in paying it back." We just cannot behave like that. Such niceties apparently do not bother my right hon. Friend—incredibly, since he is a very nice and reasoning man—because he then tried to screw the money out of the whole profession, those guilty of buying job lot frames and those not guilty of buying them. He decides all must be punished for the enterprise of some.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: There is a precedent in defence contracts for the taxpayer being rebated, where the whole procedure of post-costing provides that where excess profits are made they be returned to the Exchequer.

Dame Jill Knight: In this case, there is a legal contract. The sum I am talking about was fixed by my right

hon. Friend the Secretary of State, not by the people who actually received it. At this point, justice reared its head, because my right hon. Friend was taken to court, and he lost. Mr. Justice MacPherson, who adjudicated on the matter, said:
In my judgment there is here an indentifiable illegality … in that the Secretary of State has not acted within his legal powers in the process of deciding what is the fair determination of fees for sight-testing and dispensing.
He added that he was comforted by the conviction
that this result is just since the opticians played no part in fixing the payments for appliances over the relevant years and, if there was fault or failure in the assessment of those payments, it was the fault or failure of the DHSS and thus the Secretary of State.
The DHSS lodged an appeal, and then thought better of it. I suppose that someone read the judgment carefully and decided, "Why bother to go to court when you can change the law and make what was illegal suddenly legal. Why bewail losing a game when you can change the goalposts and retrospectively claim that the ball was in?"
I referred earlier to clause 3. There is no doubt that the legal interpretation of that clause is, first, to give the determining authority power to recover at any time moneys which on further thought it considers to have been overpaid, however long ago the alleged overpayments occurred and without the agreement of the professions concerned. That cannot be fair. Money can be recovered despite the fact that every part of such money must have been paid under a determination of the authority itself. It can be despite the fact that such determinations gave individual contractors who rendered services relying on such determinations as part of their contracts a right at law to be paid such moneys. The authority is to able to recover such moneys, not specifically from the persons who actually received them, but by way of adjustment or reduction of future fees for work to be done by them or others—and that seems extraordinary—and to do so despite the fact that such a system must inevitably produce at least one result which Mr. Justice MacPherson described as unjust and unfair, that is, that part of the moneys allegedly overpaid would be recovered from people who did not receive some part, or indeed any, of the soi-disant overpayments.
All that has to be shown, under clause 3, by the determining authority is that, if the earlier determination had been made at the date of a later determination, it would have been made on the basis of different information. This seems to be regardless of whether the persons to be penalised had any responsibility for the fact that the determining authority did not have that information or even any knowledge of it.
I have tried to make a brief speech on matters I judge to be of grave concern, because the law is being changed to achieve something that is now widely acknowledged to be grossly unfair.
When my right hon. Friend spoke at the beginning of this debate, I understood him to give an assurance that this Bill would not be used to get back the money to which the court said the DHSS had no entitlement. I want to be absolutely clear that I have understood my right hon. Friend correctly, and I ask him one question. He mentioned the sum of £11 million, but the sum mentioned earlier, which was the matter of a court determination, was £14·2 million. What happened to the extra sum? Is that somehow magically outside the circle of protection? I


would not wish this small Bill, which contains the possibility of such grave injustice, to pass without at least one hon. Member stating her reservations.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: Without following entirely the specific clauses and aspects of the Bill dealt with by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), I wish to say briefly that, when she described this as an omnibus Bill, that was an accurate description. As it has developed, it has become something of a Pandora's box. It is worth recalling its background.
Originally, the Government negotiated a new contract with NHS pharmacists in relation to the distribution of pharmacists and, rather uncharacteristically, tried in another place to tag it on to the back of a law reform Bill relating to that part of the new distribution procedure for pharmacists that would relate to Scotland. That was a bizarre approach. When we consider the Official Report, perhaps the Minister will appreciate it if I put the case even more strongly. For whatever mischievous, malevolent or merely misconceived reasons the other place may have defeated the Government on that occasion, a Government who manage to get Lord Bruce-Gardyne, Lord Harris of High Cross—their general views make the Daily Telegraph look like a tabloid—Lord Kilmarnock, Lord Ross of Marnock, and Lord Tordoff all into the one lobby have achieved an exercise in coalition politics that even the alliance could not hope to emulate.
A furore greeted that slap in the face to the Government, with the announcement of the Minister of State some time later that he could not see that any legislative time could be made available to introduce the contract. Then petitions were presented at Downing street by the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee and so on. The Government then came forward with this fairly wide-ranging Bill, as it has become. It is worth remembering why this has happened. It has partly been because of a degree of maladministration, if not political incompetence.
The window of opportunity that presented itself to the DHSS came in some ways for the saddest of reasons—an outbreak of food poisoning at Stanley Royd hospital. There followed the Secretary of State's statement in the House on 21 January, and thereafter the general build-up of pressure to have some fairly drastic and definite action taken to remove Crown immunity from hospitals. That was followed by the legal challenges to the DHSS in the courts north and south of the border, which led to the measures in clause 3.
There are positive reasons for the introduction of the entire measure, but negative pressure led to individual provisions being presented in their present shape and form. I echo the general views on Crown immunity and the need to set up a more satisfactory system with a rational distribution of pharmacies. Most people think that is desirable. My hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and I welcome and support the idea of setting up that system.
The Secretary of State gave a categorical commitment on the remuneration and reimbursement arrangements for NHS contractors. Like the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), I hope that it remains a categorical commitment. We welcome it. Without being churlish, I point out that time and again the DHSS is

finding that its actions on remuneration, clawback affecting opticians, and board and lodgings payments have been against the law. The hon. Member for Edgbaston rightly referred to the steps taken by the DHSS to alter the arrangements so that it does not fall foul of the procedures. I am glad that the Department has had the good grace to say that it will not exercise the powers it will be given under the Bill and seek to claw back money.
It would be nice if the measures abolishing Crown immunity were extended. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have received material from the Consumers Association, various local authorities, and so on, arguing for an extension of Crown immunity. I hope that that aspect will be explored in Committee.
A more rational system of distribution of contracts for pharmacists is necessary and desirable. I echo the points made by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), although his constituency contrasts dramatically with mine. Tie-ins with local transport in rural areas are obviously not matters for the Bill, but I hope that we can move towards that end.
I am disappointed by the Government's dog-in-the-manger attitude to the appeals mechanism. Recently I received a letter from a pharmacy in a small town in my constituency which summed up the logic of the Government's actions with respect to a distribution pattern. He said that 70 per cent. of his pharmacy's turnover came from prescriptions and that he was faced with the prospect of a pharmacy moving in next door. It is questionable whether there is room for both pharmacies in that community. I am concerned with the Government's move to set up a regulatory system.
The Highland health board has referred to the pharmacy practice sub-committee, which will comprise four lay members and three pharmacist or chemist contractors appointed by the health board after nominations submitted by the area pharmaceutical committee. The health board stated:
In effect, this committee will comprise three chemists drawn from the Health Board area"—
the same will apply south of the border—
who may find it difficult to be wholly impartial when considering applications for inclusion in the pharmaceutical list"—
the conclusion contains the most telling point—
and probably even more difficult to convince unsuccessful applicants that they have been.
"Objective" decisions may be made, but inevitably allegations of vested interests, or at least competing interests, will be made. It is therefore not satisfactory for the Government to say that nothing can be done.
The Government estimate that £4 million will be saved, £2 million of which will go direct to the DHSS. I am not against that, and I hope that that sum will be reinvested in other health care. It could also be used to improve pharmacy. The other £2 million will be directly earmarked under the "incentive payments" for the development of pharmacy and the development of the up-front role of the pharmacist and his contribution to general primary care.
If an extra £2 million is coming to the DHSS, I cannot honestly believe that there will be so many cases of appeal and of Ministers having to make second judgments on decisions taken locally or regionally that all that money and savings will disappear simply in the administration of the scheme. There is either a sense of bureacratic inertia


within the Elephant and Castle or there is a lack of political will on the part of Ministers. We will return to this in Committee.
I welcome the assurance given by the Minister of the status of the NHS contractors. Many hon. Members were concerned, when the Government broke the opticians' monopoly, about the subsequent effect that that would have on opticians' services.
Recently I attended a seminar in Edinburgh. I learned from that and from contacts with other opticians that there is a great malaise stemming from the lack of morale in the opticians' service. There is an economic question mark over the distribution of that part of the Health Service. The Minister has assured us that he will back off, but it will take a little more to restore the position. We give the Bill our general support but will seek amendments at a later stage.

Mr. John Hannam: The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) represents the Highlands, whereas I represent an urban seat in the lowlands of Devon. However, I follow the approach he has outlined in supporting the Bill.
First, I should like to declare two interests. One is, as the vice-president of the Institution of Environmental Health Officers. That organisation has campaigned strongly for the removal of Crown immunity from NHS hospitals. My other interest is as an adviser to the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. That body has wide responsibility for the operation of the pharmacists profession.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health on tackling the Crown immunity issue. I was the sponsor of a private Member's Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) which preceded, if not prompted, Government action to deal with the growing problem of unsatisfactory food hygiene standards in our hospitals.
I shall quote a couple of examples which were given at the last environmental health officers congress. They will explain my concern and that of the environmental health officers. Last September, a paper was presented to the congress. The following examples were given:
The kitchen at a leading teaching hospital had jelly containing bird droppings, rice coated with bacteria, infestations of ants and several large dead oriental cockroaches. Sparrows were flying around the restaurant at Charing Cross Hospital London, slicing machines were thickly coated in grease and gulleys in the washroom were choked with debris and slime".
So reported the Hammersmith environmental health officer, Mr. David Rowley. He continued:
A cutting board was on the floor next to a dead cockroach and mouse droppings littered a disused oven. Live cockroaches were near the washing machines and a week after the management was asked to bring in pest controllers, the place was still infested.
Those examples underline the need for the proposed action.
As a result of my experience in the world of catering, I am sure that the problem is one of management failure to instil proper standards. I have always argued that legislative action is needed to give teeth to the efforts of hospital managers to instil necessary hygiene discipline. I fully endorse clause 1.
As for clause 2 and the pharmacists' contract, I welcome the speed with which my right hon. Friend has carried out his promise to reinstate the new contract for community pharmacists. That was agreed in May 1985 and originally intended to be introduced by regulation, but the Department decided that it did not have the necessary powers.
I know that there are some people such as my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) who are not entirely happy that control of entry into the pharmacists' profession is being introduced, and I understand their anxiety. The excessive costs incurred in a proliferation of small pharmacists dispensing NHS prescriptions had to be dealt with, and a better system of distributing pharmacies was worked out between the DHSS and the pharmacists' negotiating committee.
The bunching of pharmacies in the high street, each with an NHS contract, and the resulting shortage of rural pharmacies will, I believe, be resolved by the new contract. I fully support it, although I take on board the reservations about the 2 km distance which has been laid down.
The Pharmaceutical Society feels strongly that a national appeal body is required. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South, it has always argued that appeals should be considered by a panel convened by, but independent of, the local family practitioner committee. It is felt that there should be a national appeal procedure, as is the case with the regulations that implement the Clothier agreement.
There would be more confidence in a central appeal body. A local one might easily be prejudiced. A central appeal body would also help to provide uniformity throughout the country. The Bill proposes that the local appeals panels would consist of three non-pharmacists and three pharmacists, or pharmacy contractors, with a lay chairman. Although they would not be drawn from any FPC which has already commented on an application, they would be from near enough at hand to allow for the suggestion that their local knowledge could have influenced their decision. That is all the more likely when the non-pharmacists are medical practitioners with a vested interest in the subject, if not the case.
Contractors are likely to start from the point of view that a new contract should not be granted where there is already a contracted pharmacy. Such dangers would be averted if a wider based non-local appeal body were established. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider the strong representations that have been made about them. I sincerely thank my right hon. Friend for presenting the Bill and, subject to such changes as I have described being made in Committee, I should like to give it my full support.

Mr. Gordon Oakes: I also support this useful little Bill. I should like to declare my interests, which are almost a mirror image of those of the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam). I am an honorary vice-president of the Environmental Health Officers Association, and have been for many years, and I advise the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. It is a professional body that looks after the standards and registration of pharmacists.
I should like to deal first with clause 1. The Environmental Health Officers Association has battled for years against the ludicrous concept of Crown immunity.


Crown immunity is a legal fiction which held that the Queen or the King could do no wrong and that therefore a Department of State could do no wrong. There have been recent terrible incidents in old people's homes or in hospitals for old people, and in hospitals that care for the mentally ill. Those are people who are least able to cope and need the greatest protection from the state. Things have gone badly wrong, people have suffered illness and many have died. The Bill is an advance against Crown immunity and I congratulate the Minister for taking what all hon. Members have said is but one small step.
Prisons are not within the province of the Minister but people in prison do not have the power held by the rest of us to object to something and prisons ought to be inspected by environmental health officers. Indeed, I would feel happier if environmental health officers from Westminster council came to this place and had a look at our kitchens from time to time. The concept of Crown immunity is nonsense and the sooner it disappears from the law the better.
The Minister is to be congratulated on clause 2. For years the pharmaceutical profession had negotiated with the Government about a new contract. Agreement was reached last year but in the autumn it looked as if all was in jeopardy because the Government were doubtful about the legality of introducing the new contract and said they did not think they had time to deal with it in this Session. There was utter despair in the pharmaceutical profession, bearing in mind all the work that had been carried out. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and his Under-Secretary of State on finding the time and adding clause 2 to the Bill. That is greatly appreciated by pharmacists.
The new contract will help a number of people. It helps the Government and creates necessary savings, but as the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) said, at least half of those savings will go back to the profession to improve standards, especially in areas that are short of pharmacists. It helps the profession because the people running many small pharmacies can retire only with great hardship, and the provisions of the Bill will allow such people to retire with some decency and lessen the numbers in the profession.
It is not generally recognised in the House that a small pharmacy dealing with fewer than 16,000 prescriptions per year is not only costly in an administrative sense but receives an enhanced payment for the number of prescriptions it issues. A small pharmacy is not necessarily a small shop. It may be a big shop but the pharmaceutical side of it may be small. As the hon. Member for Exeter said, that is what happens when chemists bunch up and there are four or five pharmacies almost within yards of each other. In housing estates and suburban areas, the Bill will encourage new pharmacies to open and all hon. Members have wanted that for a long time.
In my constituency there is a housing estate in a place called Upton. It is about two and a half miles from the centre of the town. Many old people live in Upton. There is a very dicey bus service between Upton and the centre of the town. Although there are two doctors in Upton, there is no pharmacy. It is very difficult to persuade a pharmacy to open there, because pharmacists rely not only upon their pharmaceutical prescriptions but upon the sale of other goods. Therefore, it does not pay pharmacists to open in Upton. The Bill may encourage them to set up in

areas like Upton where there is no pharmacy. It would help to get rid of the system under which four, five or six pharmacies operate virtually cheek by jowl.
I echo what was said about the appeals procedure by the hon. Members for Exeter, for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) and for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris). I do not like the arrangement whereby a neighbouring family practitioner committee makes a decision on appeal. I dislike it because it is too near. The FPC will make a decision not about the inclusion or exclusion of a pharmacy in its own area but about the inclusion or exclusion of a pharmacy in a neighbouring FPC area. There will be jealousies and vested interests.
I agree with the hon. Member for Exeter that a national procedure is needed. I do not think that it would he abused. It would lay down national standards. It may be slightly more expensive, but justice is never cheap. Justice must be seen to be done. If a pharmacist appeals, he must not feel that he has been done down by neighbouring pharmacists, who may be situated only a mile or two from where he has his business.
I listened with care to what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) had to say about clause 3. I received a letter from the opticians. I thought that they were being unjustly treated by the Bill. The Minister for Health gave a specific and clear undertaking that clause 3 is not an attempt to overrule by back door methods the October 1985 judgment. There is one discrepancy. The Minister referred to £11 million, but the hon. Lady referred to £14·5 million. I hope that when he replies to the debate the Under-Secretary of State will explain that discrepancy. All aspects of the Bill do a service to the public of this country. Therefore it is to be welcomed by both sides of the House.

Mr. Roger Sims: If I confine my remarks to clause 2, it is simply in the interests of time, and not because I underestimate in any way the importance of the other clauses in the Bill. I echo the congratulations enunciated by the right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) to both sides on having negotiated this agreement. In particular I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services on having ensured that that agreement is to be turned into legislation in the form of this Bill. There were certain difficulties about that.
If anybody sets up in business as a chemist, he can apply to the family practitioner committee for the right to prescribe under the National Health Service. The FPC is obliged to grant the contract, provided only that the premises are registered with the FPC and that a qualified pharmacist is in attendance. The chemist is then immediately entitled to a basic practice allowance of £3,000 plus negotiated fees for each prescription that is dispensed.
This might have been a justifiable arrangement when there were relatively few chemists and when chemists were shops of the traditional type that old hon. Members will remember, but now it is very different. There are many more chemists and there are many more shops where dispensing is only a very small part of the business. We are all familiar with Boots and we know that, although having a large dispensing business, it is involved in expensive activities, retailing a large range of consumer goods. We are also familiar with other multiple stores, one or two of which have been mentioned in the debate, that


have come on to the scene in recent years and offer an even larger range of consumer goods attractively priced and presented. I make no criticism of the business that they run—it certainly meets a need.
Although they offer a dispensing service, that is only a tiny part of their business and they do not pretend that it is otherwise. Indeed, one of the major chains estimates that only 3 per cent. of its turnover is in dispensing, yet each of those stores is entitled to a £3,000 basic allowance. This produces a ridiculous situation in which in theory at least a store could dispense only 10 prescriptions a year and would be costing the National Health Service £300 per prescription. The new contract will introduce a far more straightforward and understandable reimbursable scheme based on the cost plus basis. It will also introduce a scheme whereby in areas where there are more pharmacists than are strictly necessary some can now relinquish their contracts on a reasonable basis of competition.
There will be control of the number of pharmacies that are to be given a contract. This does not, of course, prevent anybody from setting up a pharmacy if he or she wishes. It simply controls the number of pharmacies that can be given the right to dispense NHS prescriptions. The mechanism is to be by a pharmacy sub-committee of the family practitioner committee which will decide whether and where new pharmacies are necessary and desirable. The details are not in the Bill. I appreciate that the details of the mechanism are to be incorporated in regulations that will be issued by the Secretary of State subsequent to the Bill becoming law.
Although I realise that many of these details will have been the subject of internal discussion, I hope that the Minister in his wind-up may have time to say a little about the appointment and composition of these sub-committees and the criteria that they will use, or are likely to be invited to use, when they are considering whether to approve new pharmacies.
I consider that both the new cost structure and the scheme to allow rationalisation of the provision of pharmacies is eminently sensible, it has been negotiated with the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee and it has the support of the National Pharmaceutical Association, an association that numbers 7,500 people collectively owning more than 8,600 pharmacies, and representing 98·5 per cent. of all pharmacy proprietors. The association says:
We believe that the new contract, as negotiated between the DHSS and the PSNC, will be to the ultimate benefit of the health service, to patients and to community pharmacy as a whole.
I strongly endorse that view and hope that the House will do the same.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I wish to declare an interest. I am a sponsored member of the Confederation of Health Service Employees. I want to make clear what that means. I receive no personal remuneration at all, I do not claim any expenses from the trade union involved and the moneys that it pays are paid directly to my constituency party to fund a service and advice bureau for the general public who have problems.
The Bill is of importance to the Confederation of Health Service Employees. It is a Bill that in part the confederation has sought vigorously over the years in so

far as COHSE members are in the front line of arguments and problems that arise over the whole question of Crown immunity. The union has a reservation. The Bill is a disappointment in that it does not remove from the National Health Service its immunity to the full enforcement procedures for breach of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The union looks forward to further legislation to deal with that.
Over the years, members of the union have seen a grave deterioration in standards within the NHS arising directly out of an absence of resources and not just a deficiency in legislation. They saw the report produced by the Institution of Environmental Health Officers in 1978 which identified 1,000 hospitals as unsatisfactory and which stated that 100 hospitals warranted prosecution and would have been prosecuted if they had been in the private sector. Members of the union then saw the report of 1985 which identified 60 per cent. of National Health Service hospital kitchens as breaking the current health regulations and identified 97 hospitals as warranting prosecution.
That brings us back to the Stanley Royd affair. It might be worth spending a minute examining what has happened. In that hospital, where I am told that 26 elderly people unfortunately died, contaminated beef was served to patients, mouldering vegetables were found in the kitchen, liver with fluke was found in the catering department, kitchens were infected with cockroaches, dirty drains were found, kitchen procedures and handling practices were likely to spread contamination and appalling cooking facilities and food storage deficiencies were also identified.
I cannot understand how the report which was produced dealt with those problems. In relation to those deficiencies it said:
All the environmental health officers we heard"—
that is, those who were carrying out the inquiry—
agreed, perhaps surprisingly in the light of the contents of their reports and despite strong pressure to say otherwise, that the conditions at Stanley Royd, though sometimes far from ideal, at no time would have justified a prosecution. The Chief Environmental Health Officer for Wakefield was supported by all the EHOs called before us in saying repeatedly that there was nothing in the kitchen at Stanley Royd that would have warranted taking legal action. Their visits were uninhibited and they did all that they regarded as being necessary.
In paragraph 230 the report said:
We think that, if the reports had been in stronger terms"—
that is, the reports by the environmental health officers—
the kitchen would have been improved at an earlier date, but that the environmental health officers did not regard the kitchen as giving rise to any imminent risk of danger to health or as justifying stronger criticism … the evidence given to us by the professional environmental health officers was to the effect that the sanctions of the criminal law would not have been employed in respect of the kitchen at Stanley Royd, even if they had been available.
That is a remarkable statement in the light of the report on conditions in that hospital. It focuses our attention on whether the law, as it stands, is sufficient and whether, even with powers, environmental health officers will have the necessary power available to them to ensure that higher standards are imposed.
The 1977 arrangements have not worked. Certainly some hospital authorities have ignored the very important recommendations made by environmental health officers, The question now is, will the environmental health officers of local authorities do their job? Will they push for


prosecutions? Some may not, due to pressure from local authority members who want to use precious health resources within their health district for their pet projects. Political pressure may be exerted through environmental health committees and local authorities on environmental health officers not to go into certain hospitals and not to draw up reports but only to ensure that money earmarked within those health districts for particular projects is not taken aside to be used on upgrading certain facilities. All that arises not because of any deficiency in the professionalism of environmental health officers but because of a deficiency in resources available to district health authorities for these important works.
Conversely, some, for reasons of promoting privatisation, may wish vigorously to pursue higher standards in National Health Service provision. An unholy conspiracy might develop, with private enterprise contractors wanting to get into certain hospitals contacting sympathetic people in the local authorities who sit on environmental health committees, and demanding that they insist that local authority environmental health officers be required to attend district health authority premises and produce reports which contain expensive recommendations and which demand more and more resources from Health Service budgets, forcing up the costs and values of in-house tenders. I see dangers in every way.
This brings us back to the question of resources and the need for the Government to ensure that where moneys are necessary for raising standards in this area there should be some way of earmarking cash for such work.
Will environmental health officers be able to be thoroughly objective? I know that they will want to be professional, but will they be allowed to press the recommendations of the British Pest Control Association, which recommends that every hospital should have a person who is suitably trained and responsible for pest control measure? It says that it is not acceptable that only one in seven hospitals has someone who has attended a DHSS course in pest control awareness. I would like to think that EHOs have the power to ensure that district health authorities appoint those people, because only by reciprocation within district authority facilities will their jobs be possible in the difficult resource circumstances.
I have confidence in environmental health officers as a profession, and in the institution to which they belong. I am worried that, as the Bill goes through and when the legislation is enacted, we shall see increasing political attempts to meddle with them, but I know that they will stand up to such pressure professionally and will protect the objectivity of their positions.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: The chief Opposition representative of the Committee of Public Safety, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), has just re-entered the Chamber. I am sure that I can satisfy him by saying that I have no interests which might affect what I say in this debate, unlike the hon. Gentleman, who I see, from a cursory glance at the Register of Members' Interests, is, like the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), sponsored by the Confederation of Health Service Employees. As he has chosen to leave this debate to the tender mercies of hon. Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) and me, that union may decide that it is not getting value for money, and reconsider the arrangement.
The hon. Member for Rhondda, who is amiable and whom I like very much, is normally foremost in condemning private contractors, where they have been allowed to work in the National Health Service, for having reduced standards and for visiting all sorts of unimaginable horrors upon the system. What does he say to the comments of the hon. Member for Workington about the laxity in food hygiene standards in National Health Service hospitals, the overwhelming majority of which are staffed by members of unions such as COHSE and the National Union of Public Employees, which are implacably opposed to private enterprise coming into the system?
I join other hon. Members in welcoming the Government proposals on Crown immunity, which will remedy a long-suffered injustice, and will be greatly to the benefit of the National Health Service.
I shall, however, confine my remarks to clause 2 and the restrictions that the Government propose to place upon new pharmacies being set up as a result of the new contracts which will be imposed.
The aim behind the Government's proposal is laudable. They seek to establish a more rational system of location of pharmacies, which will be welcomed by everyone, not least by the pharmaceutical, profession. That is why the six leading pharmaceutical associations have agreed, and set out in a joint statement, that, by means of financial incentives and disincentives, the deficiencies of the present system might be remedied. Several suggestions in the joint statement have been welcomed by the Government. Owing to pressure on time, I shall not go into great detail on that point, save to say that I welcome whole-heartedly the central assertion of the joint statement.
The aim of the six leading pharmaceutical associations is encapsulated in two sentences:
If financial incentives were implemented, a better distribution of pharmacies would result, with an improved advisory service in adequately-staffed premises. It would also avoid an increase in unit costs, except in those areas where there is an overriding need for a service and for a subsidy to be paid.
As the pharmacists and pharmaceutical bodies had embarked upon a means of providing, by voluntary agreement, what the Government seek to achieve by compulsion, it is a shame that the Department has gone down the road of coercion and restriction. which I would have thought goes against the grain of what we are seeking to achieve in other areas of policy.
The negotiations were conducted behind closed doors between the DHSS and the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee, whose 25 members were forbidden to report back to those whom they are supposed to represent. On 14 May, last year, the Department presented it with a fait accompli when it revealed an unprecedented proposal to control entry to the National Health Service pharmaceutical list. That proposal is contained in clause 2(1)(c), under which a proposed entrant must satisfy a sub-committee of the family practitioner committee that it would be "necessary or desirable" to grant it a licence.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) said so eloquently, those committees which comprise three local pharmacists and three non-pharmaceutical members, who might be closely but not directly connected with the phramacists, might give less than open-minded consideration to the applications for new entrants to the profession. The proposals in relation


to appeals, as the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) and others said, leave much to be desired. I hope that amendments will be introduced to remedy those deficiencies. The best way to remedy the deficiencies would be to strike out the clause altogether. I can see no reason why newcomers to the trade should be restricted so as to confer a monopolistic benefit upon existing pharmacists.
The Government propose to fossilise the existing pattern of pharmacies and to freeze out young pharmacists wishing to set up in business and, therefore, encourage the concentration of ownership by the large multiples. There are examples from other countries of the baleful effect which such systems have had. In France, the licensing system has had the effect of driving up prices of a wide range of other goods that pharmacists can sell.
The Government's aim in this ill-considered proposal is to rig the market and to deny qualified individuals the right to set up shop. That will happen in effect if not in law, because on average 70 per cent. of pharmacists' income comes from NHS prescribing. Of course, my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench will argue that this is something which the profession itself wants because the conference of local pharmaceutical committees in June 1985 agreed with the Government's proposal and, therefore, it should be acceptable. It would be very surprising if the conference had not agreed because it was directly in its members' pecuniary interest to do so. We might remember the wise words of the great Scottish moralist and economist, Adam Smith:
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.
What the Government propose in this Bill is to create a closed shop among pharmacists and to save the derisory amount of £2 million out of a total dispensing bill which now exceeds £500 million—

Mr. Kennedy: rose—

Mr. Hamilton: I am reluctant to give way because I know that we ought to finish this debate relatively quickly.
We do not address ourselves to the real reasons why the dispensing bill has got out of control—the cost-plus system of pricing which is employed. From my discussions with members of the Government, it does not seem that we intend to address the areas where we could make massive savings on the NHS bill—by introducing compulsory tendering and contracting out, so as to provide a better service at a lower cost for patients and taxpayers.
The president of the Pharmaceutical Society, writing in The Pharmaceutical Journal last year, denounced the Government's proposals. He said:
The recent proposals strike at the basis, structure and operation of the entire pharmaceutical profession.
That is quite an indictment, and one that I am happy to endorse.
The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye said that this was not the first canter that we had had over this field. It happened in another place last year on two occasions, the first of which was in an unstarred question put down by Lord Harris of High Cross. The dangers which are inherent in the Government's proposal were

adequately ventilated, so adequately that the other place threw it out of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill which passed in the last Session.
I am pleased to say that two of those who assisted in the gutting of that Bill, in respect at least of this provision, were my predecessor in this place, my noble Friend Lord Bruce-Gardyne, who was the Member for Knutsford which I now represent, and Lord Tordoff, a former Liberal candidate, unsuccessful, but nevertheless a candidate, for the same constituency. I am pleased, therefore, to endorse my predecessors' views on this Bill and to advise the Government that the opposition that they faced last year will be there once again, if this provision is not removed from the Bill.
As we now know that Whips are merely invitations to attend and to go no further, I have the endorsement of the Patronage Secretary for the action that I shall take in due course if what is recommended is not taken up by the Government. As with the Shops Bill yesterday, I can warn the Govenment that in the new mood of militancy among Back Benchers, although I was a keen supporter of the Government yesterday I cannot promise that I shall be able to support them in future. So I counsel my right hon. and hon. Friends to be true to the principles of our party, and to remove this clause from the Bill.

Mr. William Cash: I was a sponsor of the Crown Immunity Bill. I want to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). I believe that the Government should be congratulated on bringing the Crown Immunity Bill proposals into this Bill. This, however, applies only to food legislation. In the case of Wood v. Leeds Area Health Authority 1974, it was made clear that area health authority employees were and are Crown servants. Against this background, what worries me is that, effectively, what we have here is half a crown.
In my own constituency, Stafford, we had the disastrous and tragic occurrence of legionnaires' disease, and my constituents are gravely concerned about it. We would like the removal of Crown immunity to be extended to the whole of an area health authority's activities. We see no real reason why it should be confined to food.
There is also a great deal of confusion in the law relating to Crown service and Crown immunity, and this Bill could make the position more complicated because, effectively, hospitals will be in a half-Crown position, not exempt and immune in respect of food, but exempt and immune in respect of other activities.
I therefore ask that the provisions of this Bill be extended to all aspects of area health authority work.

Dr. John Marek: We have had a very useful debate and many hon. Members have made a number of very useful comments. My only regret is that they have been very much shorter than they could have been, and I am quite sure that we could have debated for a whole day.
Apart from what was said by the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), I have agreed with nearly every point that Back-Bench Members have made. I have not said that I agree with what the Minister said, and I shall say why.
The problem is, of course, that the Government trot out their propaganda and try to make the country believe that there has been real growth in the Health Service, that services are better than before and that there is no need to put any more money in beyond the extra money which the Government are supposedly putting in at the moment.
My attention has been drawn to the British Medical Association scientific meeting at Oxford recently. One of the speakers there, Dr. John Ledingham, put it in a nutshell. He made four points in his speech. He said:
Figures showing a 12 per cent. increase in the number of patients treated between 1978 and 1983 did not distinguish between new patients and patients readmitted for further treatment.
This is symptomatic of the way in which the Government seek to beguile and mislead the nation. There could be readmissions because the patients had not been properly treated originally, then the readmission counts as a new patient and the Government wrongly interpret this as an advance in the Health Service.
The doctor then said:
Another Government claim that 11,000 new hospital beds opened between 1980 and 1984 does not mention that the total number of hospital beds available dropped in fact by 12,900 in the same period.
That is a typical Government misrepresentation about the National Health Service. He went on to say:
Official figures showing a large rise in the number of nurses also failed to mention that the nurses' working week had been cut.
Of course, we in the House know the truth of the matter, but the Government misrepresent it and proclaim that the patient in the National Health hospital is better served.
The fourth point is very important and it is one that the Minister made in opening the debate this evening. Dr. Ledingham said:
Government figures also showed that hospital spending would rise by 6·7 per cent. in the coming year when inflation would be only 4·5 per cent., but they omitted to emphasise that half the extra money had to be found by health authorities themselves from greater efficiency in the use of resources.
It is no wonder that the Minister did not give way to me earlier this evening, because he knew that he was perpetrating a misrepresentation. He hoped that the people of this country would swallow it and believe that the Government in their munificence had provided extra services and extra provision for the Health Service. But the Government are not doing that above the rate of inflation, they are doing it below the rate of inflation and hospital service administrators will have to find the money from cost-efficiency savings.
How do they find it? There are not that many savings that hospital administrators can make now. They do it basically by cutting ancillary staff, because they want to preserve patient-care services. They cut down on cooks, cleaners and maintenance, in particular in kitchens. There we have the problem, and now the Government have been forced to bring forward this Bill in order to try to improve the conditions in hospitals, but it says on the first page of the Bill:
Clause 1 has no implications for public expenditure.
Some of my hon. Friends and some hon. Gentlemen have given vivid, graphic descriptions of beetles, oriental cockroaches, lice and so on in almost every hospital in this country. I do not pretend for one moment that this is something that has grown up since 1979, but it has been made very much more serious since this Government took

office. It will not do simply to say in this Bill that we can apply the Food Act 1984 to hospital premises and there will be no revenue consequences.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) I welcome the general tenor of the Bill. It will need extra finances and extra resources if it is to be meaningful and not just something on paper. We do not want a statute that lacks the power to provide sufficient environmental health officers to inspect the kitchens and, even if the kitchens are inspected, the hospital authorities do not necessarily have the money to put things right.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) that the Bill should be extended. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 should be taken account of in hospital premises. Crown immunity should be removed from the premises that are covered, environmental health officers should be given powers to issue enforcement notices under the food hygiene laws, which they already have under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and the food hygiene laws should be amended so that employee representatives receive the same information from enforcement officers as they do under section 28(8) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.
I hope that the Opposition will table appropriate amendments in Committee—I am sure that we shall—in order to seek to broaden the scope of the Bill so that we may have an Act with teeth and so that when any member of the public goes into an NHS hospital they know that they will not catch any disease or become more ill as a result of bad conditions in the hospital.
Clause 2 talks about the pharmacists' contract. We generally welcome that. However, we are worried about certain matters, for example, the distance of 2km between pharmacies in urban areas might be too large. It may be that the small pharmacists will sell out because of the money on offer. It may be that large companies will take over small pharmacies, perhaps even in urban areas. We are worried that regulations may not be drawn wide enough to allow pharmacies to expand their functions with time, and we are worried about the appeals machinery.
I must say that if the Conservative Back Benchers who have spoken in this debate find themselves on the Standing Committee I suspect that the Minister will be powerless and we would have a national appeals machinery. I sympathise somewhat with the Minister. A national appeals machinery could be time consuming and expensive and involve much paper work. However, I wonder whether we could have a national appeals machinery which overturns decisions only if they were manifestly unreasonable when initially made. I hope that there is possible scope here for discussion and compromise.
I welcome the Minister's statement that he will not try to claw back any payments to opticians. Opticians have suffered as a result of the Government's legislation over the past few years. There is a certain amount of lost professionalism for opticians and there will be more difficulties for them. I do not think that the situation is right and I would like to see further legislation for opticians. If the Government do not provide that the next Labour Government will do so. However, I must give credit where it is due. The Minister made a welcome


statement that there will be no clawback. Will he write that into the Bill? Clause 1 clearly says that there will be no retrospection. Perhaps we could do that for clause 3.
I should like to make one small point. I hope that the powers that the Government are taking will not mean that they will meddle with the arrangements that have been worked out on a year-to-year basis between the various professions. I hope that they will not come along every two or three months and say that they have new information and that there will have to be readjustment payments or that there has been an overpayment. That should be ensured by provisions in the legislation, certainly in the regulations if there are to be any, so that incessant meddling will not be allowed. It does not make for good government. I am not accusing the Government of doing that, but they could be doing it and subsequent governments could have the opportunity to do it. There should be as much certainty as possible for the professions and the public, and I hope that the Government will take that on board.
I am short of time. The Opposition will not divide the House on the Bill. We are not happy with all of it, but we generally welcome what it is trying to achieve in all its three clauses.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Ray Whitney): In the constructive spirit in which the debate has been conducted, I shall attempt to emulate the unaccustomed brevity of the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek).
I welcome the response from both sides of the House to the positive approach that the Government have demonstrated by deciding, at long last and after much public debate under Governments of both persuasions, to do away with Crown immunity, following the extraordinary and disastrous affair of the Stanley Royd hospital at Wakefield.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Motion relating to the National Health Service (Amendment) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Malone.]

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Whitney: I welcome the support for that and I am sure that in Committee we shall be able to make sure that all the details are well worked out.
I shall try to cover as many of the points that have been made as possible in the time available, but if I cannot do so, and if they are not likely to be covered in Committee, I shall write to the hon. Members concerned.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) referred to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. He feels that the Crown notice arrangements are inadequate. In fact, they are working well. Although 300 notices have been issued since 1980, in no case was it found necessary to take action. We believe that that shows that, in that area, the NHS has a good record.
The problem of the 1 km or 2 km distance was of concern to several hon. Members, among them my hon.
Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris). When a decision on awarding a new contract is made, there are no distance rules at all. That decision rests entirely on the needs of the local people and what is reasonable in the circumstances. The 2 km rather than the 1 km rule is a qualifying condition only for the additional support paid to essential small pharmacies. Under the scheme, the intended effect is that small pharmacies in sparsely populated areas remain viable and continue to provide the service that we are seeking.
Hon. Members have asked whether Crown immunity should be removed from other premises. That problem was of concern to the right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes). I thank him for his generous remarks on the content of the Bill. That is a matter for other Departments than the Department of Health and Social Security, but at the moment the Government are satisfied that the arrangements for checking on food hygiene standards in their own premises are satisfactory. To check that inspection arrangements were adequate, validation exercises were carried out in 1983 and 1985, and it is intended that others will take place in future years. Therefore, that area will be monitored and considered on its merits by the Department concerned.
The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) was uncharacteristically ungenerous in his comments on the removal of Crown immunity, saying that we have gone 50 yd in a one-mile walk, and that we are helping evasion. I reject that charge. I believe that our proposals will satisfy all the anxieties that we all feel about the standards in some, by no means all, Health Service hospitals. I endorse the tribute that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health paid to the vast majority of people who work in the NHS and NHS hospitals.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) raised several points about opticians. It is a cost-plus contract—plus the understanding that the costs will be repaid, whatever they are. The actual costs incurred can, by definition, be determined precisely only in retrospect. Meanwhile, the contractors are paid on the basis of a forecast. It is only fair to adjust those forecasts when the real figures are known, whichever way the error goes. In the past, we have paid back large sums of money under these arrangements, and the clause does no more than provide for the present arrangements.
I confirm what my right hon. Friend has already said, that we have undertaken not to recover the £11 million from the opticians. The £14·2 million was the sum that we believed was due. Recovering £11 million would have left the opticians with an element of profit and would have kept the repayment period to a reasonable time. However, we decided not to try to recover either the full amount or the £11 million. I hope that that satisfies my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) is very experienced in health matters, and has a record of fighting for the elimination of Crown immunity. He regaled us with the horrors of bad kitchens. I endorse the point he made, that very often it is a question of management failure. I believe that the approach that we have now adopted and the institution of general management within the Health Service is contributing significantly to the improvements of those standards.
A number of hon. Members expressed concern about the appeals system in the award to pharmacists and said that there was no national appeal. This was one of the


details that were negotiated in the settlement reached with the pharmacists' representatives, and it was discussed very thoroughly at the time. We believe that the issue to be determined is one of local need. It seems right that it should be determined locally.
The FPCs are charged with the duty of planning local services, and this decision falls fairly and squarely within that remit. We do not think that a national appeal would bring any understanding of the local circumstances. Analogies are drawn with the Rural Dispensing Committee and appeals against its decisions, but the circumstances are not identical. The RDC is a single special health authority. There are no similar bodies with similar experience. When the RDC was set up, FPCs were not separate health authorities to which such tasks could be delegated. We believe that this is a suitable solution, but I undertake that we shall monitor it carefully.
The main burden of concern for some of my hon. Friends—particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South—related to the effects of limiting competition in the pharmaceutical services. I totally share their commitment to the free market and to the operation of market forces, but we must understand that in this area we are not talking about the pure operation of market forces. We are talking about an NHS contract and the award of a benefit. Therefore, we are not restricting the establishment of a pharmacist in a practice. The pharmacist can set up a practice without an NHS contract. He can also practise in a hospital pharmacy, in industry, in the private sector or in education. It is illogical to argue that, just because someone has an appropriate qualification, he is entitled to be supported in that

profession at public expense, despite the needs of patients or the taxpayer. That is a balance that we must strike in our management of NHS resources.
That brings me to the favourite hobby horse of the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), who now seems to have found a new ally in seeking to suggest that this Government are not devoting new and very substantial resources to the Health Service. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the increase in Health Service resources this year will be 24 per cent. compared with 1978–79. [Interruption.] I know that this is unwelcome news for hon. Members opposite, but it is a fact. This year, an additional £650 million will be available in the Health Service and, if it is necessary, part of that money will be available to use for the upgrading of the National Health Service hospitals. Therefore, I submit that these measures are beneficial to the Health Service, and that the resources we have made available will enable that benefit to be realised.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 42 (Committal of Bills).

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (AMENDMENT) BILL [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Rates Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(a) any administrative expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of that Act; and
(b) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of such moneys under any other Act.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Legal Aid and Advice

Mr. Nicholas Brown: I beg to move,
That the Legal Aid in Criminal Proceedings (General) (Amendment) Regulations 1986 (S.I., 1986, No. 274), dated 17th February 1986, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th February, be revoked.
It may be for the convenience of the House if we take at the same time the following motions:
That the Legal Advice and Assistance (Amendment) Regulations 1986 (S.I., 1986, No. 275), dated 17th February 1986, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th February, be revoked.
That the Legal Aid (Assessment of Resources) (Amendment) Regulations 1986 (S.I., 1986, No. 276), dated 17th February 1986, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th February, be revoked.
That the Legal Advice and Assistance (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 1986 (S.I., 1986, No. 254), dated 14th February 1986, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th February, be revoked.
That the Legal Aid (Scotland) (Assessment of Resources) (Amendment) Regulations 1986 (S.I., 1986, No. 253), dated 14th February 1986, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th February, be revoked.
That the Legal Advice and Assistance (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1986 (S.R.(N.I.), 1986, No. 47), dated 17th February 1986, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th February, be revoked.
That the Legal Aid (Assessment of Resources) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1986 (S.R.(N.I.), 1986, No. 46), dated 17th February 1986, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th February, be revoked.

Mr. Speaker: If the House agrees, so be it.

Mr. Brown: I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the Government's cuts in legal aid eligibility thresholds. In order to facilitate the contributions of other hon. Members, my remarks will be brief. I understand that the Solicitor-General intends simply to reply to the debate rather than make an opening speech. That is perfectly acceptable to me, and I acknowlege that no discourtesy is intended.
This is the first time since the inception of the legal aid scheme in 1950 that people have been taken out of the scheme by legislation. The Government are reducing by one sixth the sums allowable in respect of spouses, children and dependent relatives when calculating the disposable income of an applicant for legal aid. The present figure of 50 per cent. above the supplementary benefit allowance is being reduced to 25 per cent. above that allowance. Perhaps it will be helpful if I set out how disposable income is calculated, and then the House will more readily understand the cut.
The method of calculation of disposable income is to take gross household income, deduct tax and national insurance contributions, add any child benefits received and then deduct a sum equivalent to 50 per cent. of the supplementary benefit allowance in respect of certain categories. That figure of 50 per cent. is being reduced to 25 per cent. by the regulations we are praying against. The categories of dependants fall into two subsections. First, in the case of the non-earning spouse the cash figure per week is being reduced from £34·50 to £28·75. There are four separate categories for a child or a dependant; separately they are all being reduced. For a child under the

age of 11 years, the sum of £15·50 is being reduced to £12·91. For a child aged 11 to 15 years, the figure of £22·65 is being reduced to £18·88. For a child aged 16 to 17 years, the sum is being reduced from £27·30 to £22·75. For a dependant over the age of 18 years, the sum of £35·40 is being reduced to £29·50 per week.
When these deductions have been made, the calculation continues by deducting rent and mortgage repayments and rates and work-related expenses. If this figure is above the annual sum of £5,415, the applicant will no longer be eligible for legal aid. If the sum is below £2,255, he will be eligible for free legal aid. In betweeen those two figures, he will be asked to pay a contribution towards his costs of about a quarter of his disposable income above the sum of £2,255.
The principle under which the separate orders have been made is the same for Scotland, and indeed Northern Ireland, as it is for England and Wales. I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Falkirk, East, (Mr. Ewing) and for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) hope to say something about these matters later. The Government will argue that, nevertheless, these cuts will mean that families will still receive an allowance in excess of the supplementary benefits allowance. As far as that goes, it is true.
The charge against the Government is twofold: first, substantial numbers of people who are entitled to free legal aid will have to make a financial contribution; and, secondly, people presently entitled to legal aid, albeit with a contribution, will become ineligible.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that about 250,000 people will have to pay a contribution towards legal aid and that another 1,000 will effectively be disqualified from legal aid. That is a reduction of only 0·5 per cent. Surely that is not a large reduction compared with the number of people entitled to legal aid.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman may or may not be correct, because he is talking about what will happen. The figures are not so wide of the mark in terms of those who need to take the advice of a solicitor and apply for legal aid. For every person who needs to make an application to a solicitor for legal aid, a much larger number have a potential need for legal aid. That may concern the overwhelming majority of our citizens. It is like saying that only one person claims on his house insurance but many more people are insured. Every potential user of legal services, as well as the much smaller number who use those services, is affected by the cuts.
The cuts will obviously affect families with children, and, perhaps less obviously, a married couple where one spouse is a non-earner. They will affect a single person with a child and a single or married person with a dependent relative. In some cases, the people who are treated most harshly will be those who are taken out of the system altogether, because they will lose the protection of the upper thresholds on contributions under the present scheme.
This is all being done to save money. The Attorney-General told my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) that about £7·5 million in a full year is involved. It speaks volumes of the Government that this cut is made in this way. Criticisms of the legal aid scheme have reached such a pass that the Lord Chancellor


has been sued collectively by the Bar in his own courts. Many skilled practitioners have expressed fears for the system's survival. It is no longer possible adequately to cross-subsidise legal aid work with other work, nor do I see why firms should have to do so.
Instead of taking money out of the system, the Government should have examined some of the false economies, bureaucratic delays and inefficiencies in the court system which increase the costs to the legal aid scheme and the client. The Lord Chancellor shows no inclination to look at those matters or at anything else that does not suit him.
The legal profession has expressed strong opposition to the cuts, not least because the extra expense will undoubtedly deter some people from seeking the professional advice that their situation requires. The profession has been outspoken in its criticism of the Government on this issue, but I shall conclude by cheering up the Solicitor-General by reading him some criticism, naturally unfounded, of the Opposition Front Bench on this issue. An article on 4 April in the New Law Journal refers to our deliberations. It is headed "Lords criticise legal aid cuts" and states:
The recent cuts in legal aid eligibility have been criticised in the House of Lords but allowed through the Commons on the nod as the Opposition failed to mount a challenge.
It continued:
The Commons did not consider the cuts at all. The Law Society, which has taken the lead in fighting the Government measures, is disappointed at the failure of the Opposition to arrange time for a debate. The Shadow law officers, John Morris QC and Nick Brown, had both indicated that they were against the new regulations.
Apart from anything else, I would not want readers of the New Law Journal to get the idea that I arranged debates in the Commons, although it would be satisfying to do so. Those who purchase that journal have a right to expect that the criticism in it is based on fact. Our prayers against the regulations were tabled a month before the article appeared. It is blatantly dishonest and an insult to the House, both Government and Opposition, to suggest that such an issue would not be considered by the Commons. Our objections were a matter of record, as was the Government's intention to find time—Government time, I hasten to acknowledge—for a debate.
I urge the Government even at this late stage to withdraw these cuts and instead to take a different direction, giving more measured consideration to the recommendations of the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee on legal aid and taking an overall view of all the legal aid system's problems rather than just filching money from it.

Mr. Norman Miscampbell: I wish to make a short speech. I will not follow the speech we have just heard in detail. There are occasions on which I would argue that we are not facing up to our responsibilities on certain aspects of legal aid.
There are difficulties in the payment of lawyers appearing in court at a junior level. However, I wish to make one simple point and it ought to go out from the House tonight—we are not reducing legal aid. Since 1979 legal aid has doubled in real terms.

Mr. Stuart Bell: So what?

Mr. Miscampbell: One may equally ask what other aspects of Government expenditure have doubled in real terms since we have been in office.

Mr. Harry Ewing: What about unemployment?

Mr. Miscampbell: That is what I would describe as a good cheap point. This year we are spending £380 million on legal aid, which is an increase of 15 per cent. All those who have argued today—there has also been argument about the guillotine motion—about social security would be happy if there had been a 15 per cent. increase for other social services. This increase is five times what the Government have given to other areas.
The rise in the value of legal aid, which has occurred in the past six years, is in total contra-distinction to what happened under the last Labour Government. I do not wish to go back and back, but all the way through the seventies legal aid was starved. The only substantial increase occurred in the Labour Government's last months of office in 1979.
Nobody wants cuts of any kind and we would all argue against them. However, we have to face the fact that our resources are not limitless. We often listen to those who claim that Socialism is the language of priority, but Opposition Members are not facing-up to the fact that in spite of the difficulties—they know that I am prepared to argue the corner of education and social services—funding of the service has doubled. It has been recognised that only about 1,000 people are affected.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman accept the Law Society's estimate that 9,000 people will be required to make a contribution to Legal Aid who were not previously required to do so? That is a 20 per cent. increase in that category. What is his comment on that?

Mr. Miscampbell: I will certainly not argue on matters of detail. In principle, I accept what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said.
A quarter of million people receive legal aid. This issue must be put into perspective. At the top end of the scale, before one receives any legal aid, one is earning £1 3,000 a year and has two children. With four children, the level is as high as £16,000 a year. Of those who receive legal aid, 80 per cent. make no contribution.
We have heard of the calculations and reductions that are made. Although the Government are technically seeking reductions in certain areas we are applying our minds to our limited resources. In the past seven years we have doubled the value of legal aid in real terms. We are not in any realistic sense cutting legal aid.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I hope that we can agree about the purpose of legal aid—it is designed to ensure access to the courts for those who cannot otherwise afford it. I am pleased to see the Solicitor-General nodding in agreement with that proposition. The regulations are evidence of the fact that the Government are choosing to dilute that principle.
I would welcome the Government reforming or rationalising the legal aid system to make it more efficient, effective and available to those who need it. That is


especially true for industrial tribunals, an area in which there is manifest injustice because of the problems of cost faced by applicants.
We welcome the opportunity to debate the regulations. The problem with them is that they attack the intended beneficiaries of legal aid. As the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) said, the regulations cut eligibility for legal aid for the first time for 36 years. The consequences are serious.
The regulations hit applicants with families—often those who, perhaps because they have dependants, have the greatest need of legal aid to right wrongs. A person might have been injured in a motor accident and be unable to maintain his previous level of work and support for his family. Such a case would be typical of those who will be affected by the cuts.
The cuts mean that people with dependants will find it more difficult to obtain their rightful legal remedies. They will be obliged to make larger contributions to their legal aid. The number of people who will have to contribute to their legal aid will increase, according to the Law Society's estimate, by as many as 9,000, or 20 per cent.

Mr. David Ashby: If I heard the hon. and learned Gentleman correctly, he is suggesting that the typical person who will be affected is injured and out of work. Such a person would always get legal aid because he would not be earning and would probably be on supplementary benefit.

Mr. Carlile: The hon. Gentleman will know that there are many people whose livelihood, although not totally lost, is seriously affected by accidents such as I have mentioned. The hon. Gentleman knows from his experience in legal practice that claims for continuing loss of earnings are made in such actions. Many people might fall into that category and be affected by the changes.
Dependants' allowances, which are used in the assessment of financial eligibility, are to be cut by 16·6 per cent. and the annual allowance for a child of 16 or less will be reduced from £1,420 to £1,183. Perhaps the Government have found some miraculous means of bringing up children more cheaply. Is this a part of the Conservative economic miracle? If it is, perhaps the Solicitor-General would be kind enough to let the rest of us, who find that the cost of keeping our families is increasing, into the secret. I hope that the Solicitor-General will have the grace to admit that the effect will be felt exclusively by families with children, and that the larger the family, the harder it will be felt. The changes will affect especially families with three or four children and damage civil legal aid and the green form scheme.
As a London solicitor, an experienced legal aid practitioner and an expert on legal aid, Mr. Glasser, has said, the longer-term effect of this decision gives great cause for concern. The next supplementary benefits uprating has been announced and it will be just over 1 per cent. If average earnings continue to rise by over 5 per cent., next year there is likely to be a drastic fall in eligibility for legal aid in the foreseeable future, perhaps returning us to the situation that existed in the 1970s and which, it has to be said, was partially attributable to Labour Governments.
By making an important cut now in allowances for family groups most vulnerable to a drop in eligibility, the

Lord Chancellor has ensured that, as the upper limit effectively drops towards the level around which most family incomes are distributed, the loss of eligibility for these family groups will be more rapid and sharp.

Mr. Derek Spencer: The hon. and learned Gentleman used the "cut". Does he agree that, even after the present adjustment, the annual increase will be about 15 per cent.? Is not "cut" a rather curious word to describe that?

Mr. Carlile: I disagree entirely with the hon. and learned Gentleman. If one accepts the premise that legal aid is intended to give access to the law to those who would not otherwise have it, yet one is making the law less accessible to people who are on the income margins affected by these regulations, and if one is depriving some of them of legal aid altogether, then there is indeed a cut, as I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman will understand, in the number of people who are having their rights wronged by the court. I spoke earlier of the Law Society's figure of 9,000 extra people required to make a contribution for the first time to their legal aid. There is a danger that we are talking not just about 9,000 people but about 9,000 potential injustices which those people will not be able to afford to have put right.
It is surprising that the Government are choosing this route of cutting legal aid for certain groups when similar savings might have been made by simplifying the method by which assessments are administered. The Rayner report suggested as far back as three years ago that that sort of simplification should take place. These regulations are in direct contradiction to the recommendations last year in the 34th report of the Legal Aid Advisory Committee, which recommended that there should be wider financial availability of legal aid and advice. It is not the first time that the Government have ignored the objective advice of advisory committees, and one fears for the future of that committee too. No wonder the Government tried to rush through these regulations when nobody was looking by laying them on the Table nearly two weeks before they were published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
These cuts are another example of cuts without consultation. One would have thought that the litigation about criminal legal aid fees that was recently before the courts, would have taught the Government a lesson about making cuts without consultation with the professions and agencies that help those who have to go to law or feel it necessary to go to law. Apparently the Government have not learnt the lesson of the need for consultation.
I am afraid that, however the Solicitor-General—I am sure with his usual style and elegance—dresses up the cuts in the regulations, he will be applying only thin wrapping. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) correctly castigated the New Law Journal for one of its frequent inaccuracies. Perhaps I read it more often than he does and for that reason I am almost immune to the effect of those inaccuracies. Yet the New Law Journal rightly described the damaging effect of these changes. The Government ought to recognise that effect and withdraw the regulations because of their result for the ordinary people of this country.

Mr. John Browne: Before I begin my speech I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate


my hon. and learned Friend on the outstanding work that he has done since taking up the office of Solicitor-General. My brief experience of the law leads me to have nothing but enormous admiration for the work that he has done.
As the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) just said, legal aid is about justice. Justice is the greatest product that our nation has given to the world. The great problem with which the Lord Chancellor always has to contend is the price that has to be paid for justice. A very difficult balance has to he struck. I wish my hon. and learned Friend all good luck in continuing to assess this balance.
I should like to draw attention to two vital aspects in drawing this balance. The first is the impact of legal aid on the carriage of justice. The second is false claims.
I know of a case where a fraudulent claim almost resulted in a grotesque miscarriage of justice. My hon. and learned Friend will readily understand that access to legal aid can have a very distorting effect upon justice. If it is given only to one party to a legal dispute, effectively it provides an open cheque book to that party. If that party to the dispute decides to play a delaying game, it can outlast the other party. A gross miscarriage can occur, even before the case reaches the court, let alone comes before the court. Some thought must be given to this problem.
As for false claims, I understand that it is very difficult to examine the statement of means of an applicant for legal aid, at least before the trial. As I have already said, miscarriage of justice can often take place before a case comes to court. In order to examine statements of means, access should be available to both sides, or to Law Officers, before the trial. There are examples of people with very considerable assets who have filed claims. Either they have property or, what is less common but equally unfair, they have access to funds that may even take the form of overseas trusts. Surely they should be considered as part of the available assets in trying to aim for justice in allocating legal aid.
Legal aid offers considerable access to justice to people who are poor, but justice should not be offered to the poor alone. Justice must be available to all. That is the most important criterion that the Lord Chancellor's office must observe in the administration of legal aid.

Mr. Stuart Bell: I am always grateful for the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne). I listened with some interest to his very kind remarks about his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. When he referred to the outstanding work that he has done, I thought that he was referring to the Westland affair. His sterling work reflects great credit upon him and his Department. I say that in all seriousness and with a great sense of purpose, though with not a little mischief.
The points that have been made on these prayers are important. Although I shall confine my remarks to the orders that relate to Northern Ireland, the fact is that the hon. and learned Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) referred to the fact that legal aid cases since 1979 had doubled.
As a general rule I think it is right to say that we are following a pattern in the United States, where there is more litigation than there used to be and there are more people seeking to enforce their legal rights. As a

consequence, it is not surprising that legal aid has had this increase—I think the figure has double since 1979. That is not necessarily such a bad thing. It means that more poeple are seeking to redress their grievances and are availing themselves of the legal aid system. Therefore, while the Government must look at this aspect of public expenditure, they must look at it in relation to the law as a whole.
I refer now, if I may, to the two statutory instruments concerning Northern Ireland. In the case of Northern Ireland, there is a great deal of concern, notably of such bodies as the Committee on the Adninistration of Justice, that with lower living standards in Northern Ireland and more numerous families any change in the formula by rmulawhich legal aid is calculated will harder hit those particularly in need. I will not go through the formula, because my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) has done that in his able speech in opening the debate.
It is as well in this instance to restate the principle on which aid is granted. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) touched on that in his speech. In the first instance, when we are dealing with civil proceedings, the plaintiff must show that he has a case and that on its merits it is worthy of pursuit in a court of law. In the second instance, one has to calculate the basis on which legal aid is to be granted. It may well be that there is nothing in the regulations that prevents legal aid from eventually being granted, only it places the bar somewhat higher for poorer people. It may take some of them out of legal aid altogether. They will have been pushed through what is known as a threshold, that is, the eligibility limit. It may mean that their own contribution to the cost of the case is such that they cannot proceed.

Mr. Nicholls: On eligibility, a married man with four children would have to be earning in excess of £16,108 before he was deprived of legal aid entirely. That would mean that a Member of the House would qualify for subsidised legal advice out of the taxpayers' money. I know that the hon. Gentleman will admit that there has to be some priority in the spending of taxpayers' money. Can he in his heart of hearts be satisfied with a situation where a person can be earning that amount of money and still qualify for subsidised legal advice?

Mr. Bell: The essence of legal aid is to provide funds for those who need them be fore a court. There was a recent case of a murder trial where an airline pilot had an income of £100,000. Nevertheless, he was able to be given legal aid. The principles of the calculation of legal aid and its attribution are complex. What we are dealing with tonight is a clear principle of a clear reduction coming from the Lord Chancellor's Department from 50 per cent. to 25 per cent. based upon a supplementary benefit contribution. We are trying to narrow the debate to how it will affect people at the bottom end of the social scale.
When I was referring to the fact that the people who come forward for legal aid have a case and that is accepted when the legal aid is granted, what is to happen to those who find themselves unable now, because they have in a sense fallen off the bottom end, to get legal aid? Their sense of grievance, the grievance that they seek to redress, they can no longer take to the court. What are they to do with it—are they to spend the rest of their lives with a


sense of bitterness that they could have gone to a court and, now that the criteria for legal aid have changed, they are not able to prosecute their case before the courts?
In 1984–85 there were 14,500 applications for civil legal aid in Northern Ireland. That was, indeed, a 16 per cent. increase in the previous year. Criminal legal aid is treated differently in Northern Ireland from the way in which it is treated in the rest of the United Kingdom, like so many other things. The applicants for criminal legal aid are not asked to make contributions once they have satisfied a so-called means test.
In the past in Northern Ireland lawyers, interest groups and legal aid groups have been involved in an advertising campaign to try to persuade people to seek legal aid and advice. They emphasised that access to such advice was easy. It is hardly surprising that the increases in eligibility levels undermine the image that those groups are trying to create—that legal aid is there for all with a grievance, with the minimum restriction on calculating disposable income. Equally, the increases in the eligibility levels reinforce the prejudice against legal institutions which the pressure groups were trying to break down.
It is felt equally that the cuts will have a more severe effect on women in Northern Ireland, many of whom need legal advice on marital breakdown and who need to take out matrimonial injunctions. Of course, women are more likely to find themselves in a low pay structure and will be less willing to seek advice because their contributions to legal fees will inevitably increase.
The changes which the Government propose also inflict a penalty on those who work. The unemployed in Northern Ireland will still mercifully be able to receive free legal aid, but those on low wages, who stay off the dole, are also likely to have legal problems. They too will have to make a higher contribution towards legal fees.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) has dealt with the effect of the orders on certain categories. For example, a married couple with three children would qualify for free aid if their income is £4,847; now the level will be £4,442. A single parent with two dependants would qualify for legal aid with an income of £5,529; this level has been reduced to £5,240.
What is all this about? Conservative Members who have intervened in the debate to try to explain that this is not a cut have shown a kind of psychosis. Of course, it is a cut. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery made the point that it is designed to save the Exchequer money. The Times quoted a figure of £7·5 million a year. It is the long arm of the Treasury reaching out to reduce legal aid because expenditure on it has increased since 1979. Anyone would think that money spent on legal aid was going abroad. After all, since 1979, if that is to be our benchmark, £70,000 million has gone abroad and the Government congratulate themselves on that figure. Every penny spent on legal aid not only assists those who are in pursuit of justice but never leaves our shores and is part and parcel of the economy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East said that it is all to do with saving money. The Lord Chancellor has said that legal aid cannot be considered in isolation from the many other competing demands on public expenditure. His remarks in another place have found an echo in this Chamber tonight. It is useless for the Government to argue that public expenditure is for ever on

the increase when they nitpick their way to reductions by hitting the very people who have no need to be hit—the people at the lower end of the social scale who are as much entitled to legal aid as anyone else who can meet the criteria on disposable income.
The Law Society has been mentioned in this brief debate. It is on record as saying tht the cut would hit particularly poorer married couples with children. The Legal Aid Advisory Committee, which is the Lord Chancellor's legal watchdog, has said that the cuts would
hit people least able to protect themselves".
One studious commentator has described the moves of the Lord Chancellor's Department as "a rationing device".
I draw my remarks to a close with a series of general observations. The order before the House tonight is a financial device—no more or less. It is aimed at reducing the amounts paid out in legal aid, and the entire legal aid budget has been estimated at £320 million a year. The purpose and intent of this money is to assist those who wish to appear before the courts. Their actions or defences cannot be regarded in purely financial terms. The money is there to assist in the redress of grievances.
I would hesitate to criticise the Lord Chancellor. We all know the profound regard that he has for our legal traditions and the law of the land, but his profession has had to keel haul him before the Lord Chief Justice on a matter of payment of legal aid to barristers. To add insult to injury, the Treasury has demanded from his eminent Lord Chancellor's purse a £7 million reduction in legal aid.
The cuts must mortify the Lord Chancellor, as they do the Members in the Chamber tonight. In the end, it is the small things that count. To be sure, the Government will one day be judged on their wider record, but for this evening they shall be judged on their erosion of the principle of legal aid, their attack on vulnerable people who need all the help that they can get before the courts, and on their disregard for justice and desire to deny it to all. Drop by drop, they say, the cup is filled. For this Government, the cup must be close to running over.

Mr. David Ashby: I must declare an interest as a lawyer. The legal aid fund is being increased by £380 million, which is a 15 per cent. increase on previous years, and five times the budget rate of increase in Government expenditure nationally. Money circulates. When it goes into legal aid, part of it comes back into the lawyers' pockets in one form or another. Of course, all those who have spoken, including the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), will benefit to some extent from this.
I understand the Government's deep concern, because since 1979 expenditure on the legal aid scheme has doubled in real terms. That is a worrying figure. If we consider it as against other Government expenditure—realising that legal aid is not different from education or anything else and is part of the national cake—we must conform with other expenditure. It cannot go on for ever expanding. There are other competing interests in Government expenditure, and we must be worried about that. That worry is exemplified in the regulations. There have been sensible and good reasons for some of that expenditure. Formal arrangements, such as the duty solicitor scheme in magistrates courts, have been introduced. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act


introduced the 24-hour duty solicitor scheme for suspects in custody. That will be an expensive scheme. Another example is the extension device for proceedings in the mental health review tribunal.
As the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery said, the purpose of the legal aid scheme is to provide access to the courts for those who would be unable to have that access but for legal aid. That is a noble and proper purpose.
I hope that my record in the House in speaking on matters of concern and civil rights is matched by the Opposition. They have no right to claim that they are the only ones who are worried about civil rights, any more than Conservative Members do. We have spoken many times on the subject. It is wrong for us to think that there is equality before the law as obviously there is not.
For the very poor or for those who are not very wealthy, there is access to legal aid and to the courts. The very wealthy also have access to the courts. However, the vast number of people in the middle have to think long and hard before they have access to the courts. They must pay for advice and go some way down the line before they settle their cases as they simply cannot afford the costs or the risk of going to litigation. Those people are not and have never been eligible for legal aid.
Under the legal aid scheme a man with two children can earn a little more than £13,000 before losing his entitlement to legal aid and the limit for a man with four children is £16,000. Those figures represent middle incomes. While I accept that there may be some people who will lose out as a result of those limits—and my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) referred to 1,000 people being affected—a large number of people, the silent majority which we always hear about, cannot in civil proceedings afford to have easy recourse to the courts.

Mr. Humfrey Malins: While I entirely accept my hon. Friend's point that the civil courts are a venue which present some difficulty to some middle income earners, does my hon. Friend agree that there is still a good system of legal aid operating in the criminal courts and that it is rare to find a man on a charge before a criminal court who is unfairly treated in the granting of legal aid? Does he also accept that there is much to be said for telling the huge international concerns which come to this country to use our courts that it is time that they paid their way in our courts?

Mr. Ashby: As I have been discussing civil matters, I agree that this country is often selected as a venue for commercial court matters as ours is the best law and we should be justly proud of that. In a sense, such actions are importers of money to this country and they act as an invisible earner. However, there is a case for a charge on the use of the courts by such international concerns. There is, of course, to some extent already a charge as the writs are costly. But some of these actions go on for some considerable time, and that aspect could be examined. That could have extensive ramifications as hitherto access to the courts—not to the lawyers but to the use of the courts—has been an undeniable right of everyone. Any changes in such matters would be fundamental and must be given very careful consideration.
I wanted to discuss the criminal legal aid scheme because I have considerable experience of its workings. I

am appalled at the way in which legal aid is sometimes doled out by the courts. There is inadequate investigation of those who are granted legal aid. I frequently represent people who I discover during the trial are rather wealthy. Often the criminals know how to manage their affairs so that their wives and girl friends technically own property which belongs to the criminals. There are insufficient resources to investigate those who are granted legal aid to discover whether they are truly eligible for it. Too often, the word of the criminal is taken at face value.
It would be valuable if those who grant legal aid sat in court and heard what criminals say when they give evidence, because frequently they let the cat out of the bag. Recently, a client of mine said, "I was not there at the time; I was on my motor yacht." The fact that he had a motor yacht did not appear on his legal aid forth. Judges are too slow to pick up such evidence. Judges should examine legal aid applications when they hear such evidence and refer them straight back with a transcript so that the matter is corrected.

Mr. Spencer: Does my hon. Friend agree that, 20 years ago, the privately paid case in the criminal courts was comparatively common? Nowadays it is comparatively uncommon, but defendants are much better off.

Mr. Ashby: I could not agree more. However, too often, legal aid is granted, the assessment is made later and people might be assessed almost to a 100 per cent. contribution. Those people should not be on legal aid at all. They are not eligible for legal aid, but it is doled out without too much thought.
Recently, a court in north London started to examine carefully all legal aid applications, but what happened? The court was picketed by Left-wing lawyers, who would not allow the court to do its proper job. They urged that legal aid be made freely available to all, regardless of their financial means. That is another example of the difficulty of administering the scheme.
Courts should take a strong line; they should examine legal aid applications minutely and they should be ready to reject applications. That would increase the amount of money available to those who need it, which is how the legal aid system should work.
Another example that has been mentioned in the debate is divorce. In divorce cases, legal aid is freely available to both parties. Couples fight tooth and nail in the courts and wil 1 not settle or accommodate each other. They can afford to be unreasonable because they both receive legal aid. The Law Society should examine more carefully some of those cases and should be more prepared to withdraw legal aid if the parties are being unreasonable. That would save the legal aid fund a great deal.
More money is being spent on legal aid, but great savings could be made if legal aid was granted with more care.

Mr. Harry Ewing: The hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) has put the debate in a nutshell. The debate is about the Government's attempt to save money on legal aid. The hon. Gentleman said that he favoured the proposals because they would lead to a saving in the money spent on legal aid, which reinforces the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) in opening the debate.
The hon. and learned Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) said that expenditure on legal aid had doubled since 1979. That is simply because there are far more poor people now than there were in 1979; more people qualify for legal aid than did in 1979; there are more people with legal problems than there were in 1979. In many ways, the reason why legal aid expenditure has doubled since 1979 lies in the Government's policies, which have inflicted all these problems on people from Land's End to John O'Groats. The cost of legal aid has, of course, escalated in line with the increase in the problems faced by people throughout the country.
The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) made a point that I just do not believe can be substantiated. It does not stand examination—the idea that, because someone has access to legal aid, somehow or other it could lead to a miscarriage of justice or a wrong verdict.
I have found that, in my years here, debates on legal aid—

Mr. John Browne: rose—

Mr. Ewing: I shall give way in a minute.
Debates on legal aid have been made up of lawyers and those of us who, like myself, bring common sense to these matters. I just make the point that legal aid is not for the lawyers; it is for the clients. These statutory instruments tonight are not damaging the lawyers, they are damaging the clients.

Mr. John Browne: I did not mean to insinuate that judges would make a wrong decision because of legal aid. I have the very highest respect for the judiciary. What I was saying was that a miscarriage of justice could occur even before the case got to court because the person without legal aid could be frozen out: he could not afford to let matters escalate along with the one who had access to legal aid. It was not a question of the judge but of justice in the absolute.

Mr. Ewing: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Winchester for that extended explanation, that a miscarriage of justice might occur because the litigant without legal aid would be frozen out.
Turning briefly to the two instruments dealing with Scotland, I am sure that the Minister will appreciate that it is a tragedy that these instruments have been introduced at a time when we have a Legal Aid Bill, which attempts to reform the legal aid system in Scotland, which has just passed its stages in the other place and which is about to come to the House for our consideration and then go into Committee. The Government, and particularly the Scottish Office, have got it absolutely wrong in introducing these instruments, which will deny access to legal aid, if the figure of 9,000 for England and Wales is correct, for about 1,000 people in Scotland.
That is a not significant number. I know that hon. Members are inclined to suggest that 1,000 people is not many, but it is a very high percentage of those who find themselves before the court. The true percentage is related not to the total population but to the number of those who find themselves before the court.
Right hon. and hon. Members who represent English and Welsh constituencies will appreciate that the legal aid system in Scotland is different from that in England and

Wales. For instance, criminal legal aid in Scotland is granted by the court on the first appearance of the accused before the court. We have had recent instances where the court has refused legal aid because of the criteria used—the criterion of means and the criterion of whether it is in the interests of justice. There have been recent cases in Scotland where the court has refused to grant legal aid because, in the view of the court, it would not have been in the interest of justice to grant it.
The position is different in respect of civil legal aid, where the application goes before the legal aid committee. An attempt is being made in the Bill that will shortly come before the House to submit applications for criminal, as well as civil, legal aid to the legal aid committee. A number of other changes in the legal aid procedures are also proposed in that measure.
My hon. Friends and I regard it as a tragedy that these instruments should have been introduced to apply throughout the United Kingdom, because they will mean that people who do not now make a contribution to legal aid costs will have to contribute in future. But for Scotland, this is a particularly inopportune time to introduce such provisions, when we are about to consider a piece of legislation that will radically alter the legal aid procedure in Scotland.
We condemn what the Government propose tonight, and that is why we shall vote against the proposals tonight.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): Although this has been a short debate—or perhaps because of that—important and succinct points have been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) for understanding my desire not to speak immediately following him but to reply to the debate, thus enabling more hon. Members to take part.
I was overwhelmed by the compliment paid to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne). Law Officers are always grateful for any such compliments that come their way. He made another serious point when he said that the real question was the price that had to be paid for justice. It is indeed difficult to determine whether there is a right price.
My hon. Friend's main point is a matter of great seriousness in some instances. He pointed out that the grant of legal aid could, if not granted following proper scrutiny, constitute or give rise to injustice. Those with practical knowledge of the courts will agree that a legally aided plantiff with a nil contribution can exercise what does not fall far short of a blackmailing power over somebody with a good defence because he has nothing to lose in a pecuniary sense. I will draw to the attention of the Lord Chancellor my hon. Friend's plea for greater scrutiny of applications for legal aid.
That point was also made, though in a different context, by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby), who spoke of dishonest applications for legal aid. It is not sufficiently understood that if somebody believes, perhaps as a party, that a fraudulent or dishonest application for legal aid has been made and has succeeded, it is open to him to draw the attention of the Law Society, the DHSS or the Lord Chancellor's Department to his suspicions, and they will be investigated. Indeed, information of that kind would be welcomed.

Mr. John Browne: The access to the information or the instigating of an inquiry seems to occur after the trial. Is it possible that that opportunity would occur before or during a trial?

The Solicitor-General: That can be done at any time.
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) said something very kind, for which I am grateful. However, he proceeded to a discussion of the conditions in Northern Ireland. The essence of what he said was that in Northern Ireland there was a disproportionate number of people on lower living standards and that they would be harder hit by the effect of these orders. All that I can say that has any relevance to tonight's discussion is that traditionally Northern Ireland has followed Great Britain in the financial limits for legal aid. If there is a discrepancy now, it is probable that there was a discrepancy previously. The hon. Gentleman may want to raise that question on a future occasion, but, with respect, I do not think that it is at the centre of what we are discussing tonight.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) twitted the Government. He said that what we are doing is contrary to the recommendation of the legal aid advisory committee and that there were numerous instances of the Government failing to follow the objective advice of independent committees. I remember that last night we spent some time on the discussion of the rectitude or otherwise of the Government following the advice of an independent committee. The hon. and learned Gentleman is very versatile in his criticisms. I discovered that he voted against the Government last night and voted against the Auld report. However, we have to do what we can. We try to please some of the people some of the time. I am grateful for all the other contributions to the debate, and I shall come to them shortly.
It is true, and it would be idle to deny, that the change represented by the regulations is unwelcome. Of course it is unwelcome. It would be equally idle to deny that there is any reason for it except a financial one. Of course that is the reason. However, I think that the House would want to assess fairly the merit or demerit of the change made by the regulations. If it is to do that, it will want to see the change in its context.
The context is the very swift acceleration in the cost of the legal aid scheme each year. Of course we have to acknowledge that the change is in part because it is demand-led. That point was made by the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing). In one sense, I think that it is a tribute to the Lord Chancellor's very effective programme for the increase in the number of courts. Each year so many more legal aid cases are being disposed of and that increases the cost. However, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell ) said, after the change has been made which came into force on 12 March, we shall be spending £380 million on legal aid in this financial year. That is twice the amount spent in 1979, after allowing for inflation.
I shall be coming to the improvements we have made to the legal aid scheme. Although part of the cost is due to its being demand—led, part is also due to the improvements we made but our predecessors did not.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I think that I heard the hon. and learned Gentleman mention the increase in the number of courts. Some Conservative Members said that what we are discussing tonight is not cuts. In the context of those

comments and of what the Solicitor-General has just said about the increase in the number of courts, is he aware that on the Wales and Chester circuit, which covers the whole of Wales and Cheshire, there is to be a cut of about 20 per cent. in the number of Crown court sittings in this financial year because the Lord Chancellor's Department has been ordered by the Treasury to make cuts in its budget? The result of those cuts on the circuit will be that one fifth of the court sittings will cease. Is that consistent with the boast the hon. and learned Gentleman makes about the Government providing more courts?

The Solicitor-General: The hon. and learned Gentleman will want to raise that—perhaps he has already done so—with the Lord Chancellor. The administration of each circuit is a matter for him. It is indisputable that there has been a substantial increase in the number of courts and court cases over the past five years, and that has played its part in the cost of the legal aid scheme.
The increase in what we shall be spending in legal aid is 15 per cent. this year over last year, five times the projected increase in Government spending on a national scale, as a whole. Such a rate of increase could not be permitted to go unrestrained, especially when, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West said, so many of the competing demands on Government expenditure on social budgets, among other things, are very worthy in their nature. If the House is being fair, it will acknowledge that it is impossible for legal aid to be looked at in isolation from other demands made upon public expenditure.
I believe that my hon. Friends and I have already said enough in this short debate to establish that we are not cutting spending on legal aid. We can argue about whether we are cutting legal aid, and I suppose that if one narrows to any extent the eligibility in any single class, however narrow, it can be said that one is cutting legal aid. What matters is whether there is any cut in the expenditure on legal aid. Far from it. All that there is is a reining in on the rate of increase, to save £7·5 million.
I have acknowledged, because it is fair to do so, that legal aid is demand-led, but a further reason for increased expenditure is that the Government have substantially extended the scheme; hence its cost. I was disappointed to find that the Government were being painted by the Opposition Front Bench as being anti-legal aid. I fear that that charge compels me to make a comparison between the record of this Government and that of their predecessor. The hon. Member for Falkirk, East made no mention of any improvement, but mention has been made on the Conservative Back Benches.
My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has introduced formal arrangements for the duty solicitor scheme in magistrates' courts and he has set up the 24-hour duty solicitor scheme for suspects held in custody, and found the resources. The scheme is making steady progress in Birmingham where there is 100 per cent. coverage. Coverage is 60 per cent. in most of the country. It is my noble Friend who has made provision for interim payments for legally aided work, for counsel and solicitors; it is he who has extended assistance by way of representation, to proceedings in the mental health review tribunals; it is he who has increased the capital allowance for ABWOR, as it is horribly called, to £3,000 from £800—

Mr. Nicholas Brown: Small beer.

The Solicitor-General: Well, why was that not done before?
Our predecessors never charged the legal aid scheme with those desirable things. One understands why—because they are expensive, and no doubt the Labour Government had other priorities for their expenditure. It is just that we have found the will and the way.

Mr. Malins: Small beer may be mentioned, but does my hon. and learned Friend accept that professionals are deeply grateful to the Government for the work done for the green form legal aid scheme? The extension and general improvement of the scheme has made an enormous difference and improvement to members of the public who need the scheme and to lawyers. It is a magnificent advance.

The Solicitor-General: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is a distinguished practising solicitor. I know that what he says is true.
I therefore suggest to the House that, for a Government supposed to be hostile to legal aid, we seem to have developed a most wayward habit of extending it. By a corresponding paradox, the Labour party, which one understands to be very much in favour and so well disposed towards the scheme, contrived when it was in office, consistently, year after year, to overlook the opportunities that we have been able to take.
This year we have felt obliged to rein in on the extra cost of legal aid. We could have done it by reducing the scope of the scheme. That would have been much more damaging and highly regrettable. We could have reduced the remuneration of practitioners. The Lord Chancellor is hardly noted for a lavish attitude towards fees at the moment, and that would have been self-defeating. We could have made a general reduction in financial limits. That would have affected vastly more people than have been affected by the regulations.
The effect of the measures was described by my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls). A thousand or fewer people out of 250,000 who annually apply for legal aid will be taken out of the legal aid net altogether—less than 0·5 per cent. They will all be people who would have been paying contributions at the higher rate. Eighty per cent. of people who receive legal aid in civil matters pay no contribution. We estimate that that percentage will decrease, but not below 75 per cent. The 5 per cent. affected by the change will be required to pay a small amount.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery said that about 9,000 people will be affected, Our best estimate is that it will be about 4,500 people. Anyone on supplementary benefit or anyone whose income is around the supplementary benefit level will still pay nothing. Even those who will be brought into contribution who now receive free legal aid, as well as those who pay contributions and will pay slightly more, have the right, if necessary, to pay by instalments. Frequently, legal aid contributions of £10 a month are paid over two years. That effectively and considerably softens what has been painted as a crippling blow.
There is no self-evidently right level for the relationship between eligibility levels for legal aid and those for supplementary benefit. We have to try to follow the principle that no one should contribute more than he can reasonably be expected to afford. I do not make any

apology on the Government's behalf for the fact that the poorest members of society have top priority for legal aid. That is the spirit in which the regulations were formulated and in which I commend them to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 107, Noes 176.

Division No. 143]
[11.25 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Howells, Geraint


Alton, David
Hoyle, Douglas


Ashdown, Paddy
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Beith, A. J.
John, Brynmor


Bell, Stuart
Johnston, Sir Russell


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Kirkwood, Archy


Blair, Anthony
Lamond, James


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Leadbitter, Ted


Boyes, Roland
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Livsey, Richard


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Caborn, Richard
Loyden, Edward


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Campbell-Savours, Dale
McNamara, Kevin


Canavan, Dennis
McWilliam, John


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Madden, Max


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Marek, Dr John


Clarke, Thomas
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Clay, Robert
Martin, Michael


Clelland, David Gordon
Maxton, John


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Michie, William


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Corbett, Robin
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Craigen, J. M.
O'Brien, William


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Patchett, Terry


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Pendry, Tom


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Pike, Peter


Dewar, Donald
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Dixon, Donald
Radice, Giles


Dobson, Frank
Raynsford, Nick


Dormand, Jack
Redmond, Martin


Douglas, Dick
Robertson, George


Dubs, Alfred
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Rogers, Allan


Eadie, Alex
Rowlands, Ted


Eastham, Ken
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Ewing, Harry
Skinner, Dennis


Fatchett, Derek
Stott, Roger


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Strang, Gavin


Fisher, Mark
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Flannery, Martin
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Foster, Derek
Wallace, James


Foulkes, George
Wareing, Robert


George, Bruce
Wigley, Dafydd


Godman, Dr Norman
Winnick, David


Golding, John
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Hamilton, James (M'well N)



Hardy, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Haynes, Frank
Mr. Chris Smith and


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Mr. Allen McKay.


Home Robertson, John



NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bellingham, Henry


Amess, David
Benyon, William


Arnold, Tom
Best, Keith


Ashby, David
Blackburn, John


Aspinwall, Jack
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)


Baldry, Tony
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Batiste, Spencer
Boyson, Dr Rhodes


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Brandon-Bravo, Martin






Brooke, Hon Peter
Hind, Kenneth


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Browne, John
Holt, Richard


Budgen, Nick
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Bulmer, Esmond
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Burt, Alistair
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Butcher, John
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Lawler, Geoffrey


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Carttiss, Michael
Lord, Michael


Cash, William
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Chapman, Sydney
Lyell, Nicholas


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Colvin, Michael
Major, John


Conway, Derek
Malins, Humfrey


Cope, John
Malone, Gerald


Corrie, John
Marlow, Antony


Couchman, James
Mates, Michael


Cranborne, Viscount
Mather, Carol


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Maude, Hon Francis


Dorrell, Stephen
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Dover, Den
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Durant, Tony
Mellor, David


Dykes, Hugh
Merchant, Piers


Eggar, Tim
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Evennett, David
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Miscampbell, Norman


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Fallon, Michael
Moate, Roger


Fletcher, Alexander
Monro, Sir Hector


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Moore, Rt Hon John


Goodlad, Alastair
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Moynihan, Hon C.


Grant, Sir Anthony
Neale, Gerrard


Griffiths, Sir Eldon
Neubert, Michael


Grylls, Michael
Newton, Tony


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nicholls, Patrick


Hannam, John
Norris, Steven


Harris, David
Osborn, Sir John


Hayward, Robert
Ottaway, Richard


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Page, Richard (Herts SW)





Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Steen, Anthony


Pawsey, James
Stern, Michael


Pollock, Alexander
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Portillo, Michael
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Powell, William (Corby)
Sumberg, David


Price, Sir David
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Raffan, Keith
Terlezki, Stefan


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Renton, Tim
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Rhodes James, Robert
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Thurnham, Peter


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Trippier, David


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Twinn, Dr Ian


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Viggers, Peter


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Waddington, David


Roe, Mrs. Marion
Waldegrave, Hon William


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Walden, George


Ryder, Richard
Waller, Gary


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Ward, John


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Watson, John


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Watts, John


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wheeler, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Whitfield, John


Shersby, Michael
Whitney, Raymond


Sims, Roger
Wilkinson, John


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Winterton, Nicholas


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wolfson, Mark


Speed, Keith
Wood, Timothy


Speller, Tony



Spencer, Derek
Tellers for the Noes:


Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)
Mr. Archie Hamilton and


Squire, Robin
Mr. Tim Sainsbury.

Question accordingly negatived.

MEMBERS' INTERESTS

Ordered,
That the Standing Order of 16th December 1983 relating to the nomination of the Select Committee on Members' Interests be amended, by leaving out Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson and inserting Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Chorley Hospital

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Mr. Den Dover: I rise to raise a most important matter that concerns my constituency—the utterly inadequate hospital facilities at Chorley. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) may well join us, but he has a heavy cold.
The Royal Preston hospital has been built to the north of Preston at a cost of many tens of millions of pounds. Local inhabitants believe that it was built in entirely the wrong position. It might have been put there to provide some Lancaster university medical school teaching facilities, but the population growth has been to the south of Preston, in the boroughs of Chorley and South Ribble. The population in those boroughs is now more than 190,000, as compared with the town of Preston's 120,000 and the adjacent West Lancashire district council's 120,000.
We believe that the Royal Preston is in the wrong place. Spending on hospital facilities, in accordance with the Central Lancashire new town plan, should have been south of Ribble and Preston. When launching the new town, Richard Crossman said that all the basic infrastructure should and would be provided during the life of the new town, which has just been disbanded. All the infrastructure—roads, sewers, gas and electricity—is there, except proper hospital facilities in the southern part of the Central Lancashire new town.
The population in the boroughs of Chorley and South Ribble is rising, whereas it is falling in every other district health authority in the north-west. Why do we not have adequate hospital facilities in Chorley and in South Ribble? A few years ago, when we reorganised the Health Service along the lines of district health authorities, the Minister of Health was helpful and Chorley and South Ribble health authority was formed in April 1982. At that date we expected the start of the major phase 3 work at Chorley to be about now, four years later, but the current date is 1989–1990 and I have reason to believe it may have been put back to 1991 or 1992 or even later.
The new district health authority was set up against massive opposition from the north-western region which did not want us to be separated from Preston. Lancashire area health authority, a remote body, did not want Chorley and South Ribble splintered off. I have already said that our population is now more than 50 per cent. larger than both Preston and South Lancashire, the two adjacent boroughs. The Department of Health has been fair in the allocation of resources to the north-west over the last five or ten years. It has used the resource allocation working party to feed additional percentage resources into the north-west.
My complaint is about the attitude of the north-western regional health authority to the districts. Large conurbations in the Greater Manchester area have over-provision of health authority services and there is under-provision in the shire county of Lancashire. I want to speak about that imbalance. Believe it or not, in Chorley we have no medical beds. We have no orthopaedic beds, no pathology services and totally inadequate X-ray facilities.
This is a new district health authority catering for some 190,000 people. West Lancashire, which is next to us, has

had all the facilities for several years and is getting a new major phase of work which is basically designed to renew those facilities. Areas in which there are no facilities should be served first before we set about renewing facilities in other areas.
As I have said, in some areas of Greater Manchester there is massive over-provision of health facilities. I should like to compare the number of beds provided per 1,000 of population. In Chorley and South Ribble, the figure is 129 beds for 190,000 people; West Lancashire, 400 beds for 120,000 people; and Preston more than 1,000 beds for the same number of people, 120,000. That is a massive imbalance. One might say that we have the Royal Preston hospital and have spent tens of millions of pounds on it. What should we do? We do not want inadequate usage of those facilities, but we should be changing its role slightly so that it becomes a regional specialty centre, perhaps moving cardiology from Blackpool to Preston. That is the sort of role that the Royal Preston should play in future, rather than asking people from Chorley and South Ribble to go through or around Preston to go to it.
Access to the Royal Preston is appalling. Many of my constituents have a round trip of up to 30 miles and that takes them two to two and a half hours by public transport in each direction. As well as the cost, especially if more than one member of the family goes there, and of course people visit every day, that is unacceptable in today's world where we are saying we want a local health service run locally for the benefit of local people.
The region has a 10-year strategy programme. That is set out in a well-produced document and on page 20 the overall aims in the 10-year programme are summarised. Two of those aims are:

"(iii) To correct major deficiencies in the availability of health care
(iv) to ensure a more equal access to services by people throughout the region, no matter where they live;"

I have already highlighted the inadequacy of some parts of the provision of health care. As for access, in the Greater Manchester area nobody is more than six minutes from a major hospital. That has to be contrasted with Chorley and South Ribble, where one is at least 15 to 20 minutes, at speed, away from the Royal Preston hospital, the nearest major hospital.
The capital spending allowances in Chorley and South Ribble are inadequate. It has the lowest revenue budget expenditure per 1,000 members of the population. Last summer, the region changed its priority criteria and said that it would allocate capital spending if districts are able to make revenue savings. We cannot do so. Chorley and South Ribble has the lowest revenue budget of all. It would do so if it could, but it is impossible for it to make savings.
A summary of the situation shows that in the last seven years since this Government came to power the starting date of 1984–85 or 1985–86 has been pushed back to 1991–92. That shows that, every seven years, the starting date is being deferred by seven or eight years. If those trends are projected forward, by the year 1992–93 the starting date for the major upgrading, phase 3 works, costing about £20 million, will have been put back to the year 2000. In other words, the works may not start until the next century.
The people of Chorley and South Ribble will not accept that. There have been marches of 20,000 people and petitions galore. There have also been all sorts of hospital


crusades. I applaud the efforts of those who have complained about the lack of facilities. The casualty service is now open each day from 9 o'clock in the morning until 8 o'clock at night, but Ormskirk and the Royal Preston are open for 24 hours a day. This imbalance in hospital services is unfair.
After the Minister for Health visited the north-western region last July, he wrote a letter to the regional chairman in which he said:
You told me of your planned capital developments which are fundamental to resolving the problems of equality of access and confirmed that the capital programme has this as a prime objective.
As a back-up—paragraph 2(iv)—he said that the region was going to
Submit a full 10 year Capital Programme reflecting the policies and priorities contained within the Regional Strategic Plan and in particular show how this will take into account the need to address the current imbalance of service provision to facilitate equality of access.
I have referred to the unfortunate imbalance in access and to the lack of facilities. They are the matters that I am raising in this debate.
One might say that it is up to the region to allocate priorities between its various districts. I accept that but, as in so many other aspects of a Member of Parliament's job, there are appeal procedures. Every time that these matters are raised with the region, we face the same brick wall, the same stone wall, the same nil response. An officer from the Department of Health and Social Security should take a look at this as an independent observer. Chorley and Ribble could give evidence and the region could give evidence. I am sure that the observer would accept what I have said this evening and would say that something should and must be done about the lack of medical facilities and the lack of reasonable access.
As a fall-back, the provision of private funding ought to be looked at. Too often we say that this must be met by Government spending—in other words, by the taxpayer. Is it right and proper that although many Government Departments rent office accommodation throughout the country, the private sector is not allowed to provide buildings and rent them to us? Something happened a few years ago in Sussex. Perhaps Chorley should follow that model.
We will do everything possible to achieve the earliest possible starting date for the Chorley upgrading work. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will at least keep an open mind and not turn down the possiblity of somebody coming along and taking an independent look at the problem.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for ealth and Social Security (Mr. Ray Whitney): I am glad to have the opportunity to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) and to congratulate him on using the possibilities of the debate to bring before the House the problem of the expansion and upgrading work of Chorley hospital. My hon. Friend's assiduity in pursuing the interests of his constituents, particularly in the health sphere, is well recognised, and it was certainly well demonstrated in his remarks tonight.
It will not be possible for me to respond in detail to all the points that my hon. Friend has made, because it would not be fair to him for me to give an instant response particularly to one or two of the interesting proposals that

he has made. However, I assure him that I will consider them most carefully in conjunction with my right hon. Friend, and carry them further in due course.
I recognise the justified concern which my hon. Friend has about the delays in starting work on phase three of Chorley district general hospital. Phase three is a major development which is likely to cost something of the order of £21,295,000 which will transform Chorley hospital into what we all understand as a proper district general hospital.
As my hon. Friend has told the House, at present his constituents in Chorley and south Ribble district have to look to the new Preston royal hospital for acute services. This is a fine £22 million hospital which was opened in 1983 by Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales. This arrangement remains since before 1982 when Preston, Chorley and South Ribble were one district. My hon. Friend understandably wants Chorley to have its own hospital and for his constituents to enjoy the same access to health services as people in other parts of the region which are undoubtedly better provided for.
In regard to the north-west as a whole, my hon. Friend recognised that we have, indeed, increased massively the health services in the north-west region as a whole under this Government. It is better funded and managed, and treating more patients than ever before. Since 1978–79, health service spending in the region has increased from £380 million to £809 million in 1984–85. That in real terms represents a growth of 19·6 per cent. Taken together with the region's allocation for 1985–86 and 1986–87, the current financial year, the expenditure in real terms in the region is forecast to rise by some 21 per cent.
As regards capital allocation, there is a good story to tell. I recognise the point that my hon. Friend makes about allocation within the region, but it is important to set that in context. The north-west region has the second highest capital allocation in England, amounting in 1986–87, the current financial year, to £71·52 million. On a per capita basis, the region's basic capital allocation works out at £14·89 for every man, woman and child in the region compared with an English average of £12·70. However, the problems and inequalities exist.
My hon. Friend drew the attention of the House to the question of access. In this respect, his constituents in Chorley and the people in South Ribble fare poorly compared with the better-off districts in the north-west region, notably Manchester and Trafford. I have to say that that they are not the worst off, and their access rate for all surgical specialties is slightly above the regional average because of their closeness to the new Preston royal hospital.
The region says—with which I hope my hon. Friend will agree—that it must build to make it possible for people to have better access. Hospitals have to be in the right place. Over-bedded districts must yield up resources for developments in deprived districts. I believe that this is happening and that, recognising as I do the disappointments, across the region great progress has been made. In particular, acute beds are being rationalised from Manchester. Indeed, Ministers are openly supporting the authorities in Manchester who are carrying through this change so that all the people, no matter where they live in the region, can have more equal access to health services.
The key to the whole process is making better use of existing buildings. But the region has found that in order


to do this it will need to build in some already comparatively well-off districts. If the new buildings are cheaper to run than the old and if revenue and capital resources will be released, this makes sense. This is why, when the capital programme was drawn up last year, the highest priority was given to schemes releasing a considerable level of revenue savings, at least £100,000 per annum. So, the region has been told that Ministers will agree to such developments only if, first, it can be shown that the resources released will benefit deprived districts and, second, it is monitored by the region and the Department. The region has accepted that.
I can appreciate my hon. Friend's concern, as phase 3 at Chorley appears to have slipped back in time. I understand that what has happened is that the region's capital programme was drawn up with some over-commitment built into the early years. The regional health authority took the view that for planning reasons over-commitment can act as an incentive to progress and assist in ensuring that the regional health authority can respond to slippage, so that maximum use is made of capital allocations. On this basis, the date previously shown for Chorley's hospital was the earliest possible date, if other things did or did not happen. I understand that everybody at Chorley, and in other districts, appreciated that there was over-commitment in the early years.
After a year's experience Sir John Page, who recognises fully the problems and concerns voiced so well by my hon. Friend, decided that this was not sound resource management or the best way to cope with slippage. Instead, the region is now to publish a 10-year programme which is affordable and realistic and in which the over-commitment will be eliminated as far as practical.

The regional health authority is shortly to consider a new capital programme on this basis. Phase 3 is now proposed for 1990–91. I understand that this does no more than confirm the realistic starting date for the scheme, were there to have been no slippage under the old programme. I am assured that my hon. Friend now has no need for further conjecture on future delays—there is no question of it being the year 2000. Chorley phase 3 has a fixed priority in relation to other schemes which will not be changed.
To complete the picture, I should say that my officials are considering with the Treasury the region's plans for phase 3. This is a clear indication of the regional health authority's commitment to the scheme. I assure my hon. Friend that no unnecessary delays will stand in the way of formal approval in principle for the scheme.
What I have been able to say will by no means have satisfied my hon. Friend, but I hope that he accepts that the north-west region and Ministers have a deep concern to establish a capital programme soundly based on the regional strategy. That strategy is committed to reducing the inequalities of access throughout the region. My hon. Friend should recognise that, to achieve this, resources must be released from comparatively well-provided districts to facilitate developments in relatively deprived districts. That is happening. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall continue, in co-operation with the regional and district health authorities to ensure that that progress continues. I shall study the proposals which my hon. Friend has made to the House and will be in touch with him shortly.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Twelve o' clock.